 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »
|
|
Mining, but not Bitcoin mining as I just used my GPU to mine altcoins and exchanged to Bitcoin. I stopped doing it anymore because it was not worth it (the same with faucets - not worth filling the captchas for few satoshis).
|
|
|
|
Some of them I hold and some I spend when I am in need of any emergency, I know this is not the right time to spend but we earning so that we can spend when we need it.
Im doing the same holding most and spending part of my Bitcoins when necessary, but its surprising how many people are in debts instead - for those Bitcoin cannot be much appealing when they have to earn the Bitcoins first. |
|
|
|
500 people is too little. There are over 10.000 unique addresses with 100 BTC or more alone. More likely up to 100.000 people have 21 BTC or more, but definitively over 10.000 people. |
|
|
|
|
I know OP dont like hardware wallets, but if you often spending from your 6 BTC wallet then hardware wallet like Trezor or KeepKey is not so expensive and protect you best. If your just holder instead, paper wallet is better option, and you can worry how to securely redeem paper wallet later.
|
|
|
|
That's true fiat will always the primary choice of the people and bitcoin will be the secondary choice of the people around the globe.
Never say never. Im old enought to know from experience this sentence is true. Maybe not in our lives, but saying fiat will be used forever is very short sighted. Fiat has its flawns and debt based currency might become obsolete concept for next generations. Whatever hapens Bitcoin is going to be remembered as game changer imo. |
|
|
|
All doublers are scam,maybe you can gain some at the start but eventually you will lose all your investment there.
just do trading rather than using any doubler site.
HYIP are scams, but you can try your luck with dice games. You can double 49.5% of the time with 1% house edge. At least some dice sites are provably fair and long in business so can be trusted. |
|
|
|
In many countries gambling is treated as an illegal activity, but majority of us are spending our bitcoin on gambling, so yes bitcoin is used for illegal activities but atleast we are using only in gambling and not in any criminal or terrorist activities.
Maybe in some countries gambling is treated as an illegal activity, but prostitution or even watching porn can be illegal there as well, so no big deal. In most countries gambling is regulated, this mean as long as you pay special fee to government, your allowed to gamble - luckily with Bitcoin you can sometimes avoid these unnecessary fees, the interesting thing when something goes wrong you will end empty handed anyway so there is little incentive to use regulated gambling |
|
|
|
You won't have any problems if you pay high enough fee. The problem is that the fees are constantly moving up!
You can always pay much more than is recommended for fast confirmation, though the fees could skyrocket even faster if more people do this... |
|
|
|
what a numpty, bitcoin will continue on and this moron will eventually give up. it will be a waste of money in the long run
For home user it might be probem because the internet will be down at the time of the attack. For VPS it is not big deal to be down ocasionally if you just run full node to support network. The attack cost money + possibility of getting caught, so not worth it especialy when they can get down only about 10% of classic nodes. |
|
|
|
eth is not centralized afaik, ripple yes, in fact i don't consider it an altcoin at all, and its value is always the same
Both Ethereum and Ripple are premined, and this premining or giving coins to itselves is the control Goverment is looking as well. Actually I think some Ripple clon is best for government as this is not even blockchain based crypto, which can be run at few authorized servers under Goverment control. |
|
|
|
I have no problem with bitcoin, except for shops to spend it, the only way I use my bitcoin is when I put it in my wallet in a exchange site and convert it to fiat...  Some accept only Bitcoin payments, this is very rare so far but when it happens usually there is not better alernative to choose from like trezor hardware wallet and some mining ASICs as well. So there are products where you need Bitcoins only actually. |
|
|
|
One of the reason for the success of bitcoin is it reduced transaction fee as well as time. If that gets increased by 10 times the value of today, People feel bitcoin to be a failed tech. So at any instance it won't happen as days pass the value will grow which will profit miners. So No need of thinking about increased transaction charges in future.
I think the "free or very low fee Bitcoin transactions" slogan which is often used about Bitcoin description in mouth to mouth conversations is very usefull for Bitcoin. It is form of free advertisement for Bitcoin. But with fee market with constantly filled blocks and planned removal of free transactions since Bitcoin Core 0.12, we may limit Bitcoin adoption unnecessary too much in my opinion. |
|
|
|
This is a dumb article. Who really cares about the power consumption of Bitcoin ? I'm sure that Google consume more power than us. But is Google "unsustainable" ? No.
If Google was used by a handful of people, and expanding that userbase was improbable (because all of its data centers, combined, allowed just 3 searches per second), you'd probably have a point. Doesnt matter because only free market can decide whether something is worth the effort, in our example power consumption of Bitcoin mining. I could say cars are waste and dangerous for our planet as well, but free market sees it differently. |
|
|
|
If the core does not adopt it, the bitcoin will become less useful for large transactions, the price will be zero when litecoin replace bitcoin as the most useful coin.
Core is planning doing 2-4-8 MB increases, but it seems all it takes to block this proposal is Greg Maxwell and luke-jr. Maybe there is another one who has dirty plans to veto the increase and let altcoins enjoing influx of new users. Where we come to when few can veto the rest of community and make money on altcoins at the Bitcoin expense. This compromise model is much worse than 51% democracy model. It remind me how Bitcoiners are treated as utopians from outsiders - the compromise model Bitcoin Core promote seems really as some unreachable utopia clearly out of reality... |
|
|
|
adam back releases 2mb segwit, (fully compatible and communicates to lukejr, YOU, jeff, greg)
would that be a hostile takeover, would it be preventing anything in adam backs roadmap ??
You seem to imply that we *need* the 2MB blocks ASAP - yet the evidence for that is non-existent (of course it is being pushed by supporters of those trying to rest control of the project from Bitcoin Core). If Bitcoin Core ends up supporting 2MB blocks it will only be to stop Gavin and others from taking over the project.At the end of the day they might be forced into doing this but I really don't think that this is a sensible way forward. BlockStream <> Bitcoin. I understand BlockStream will try to do whatever to keep control over Bitcoin, but giving control to just one group is not in Bitcoin interest. Free market has to decide, not just BlockStream and their flawed vision of Bitcoin as just settlement layer with blocksize limit artifficaly restricted resulting in high fees and demand for other off chain BlockStream services - no thank you, it is the opposite vision of original Bitcoin project and BlockStream and their Bitcoin Core puppet has no right to monopolize Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Oh noes, wallet providers might force us to use cheaper transactions !!!   :D:D Your been deceived by Bitcoin Core, the transactions have the same size in bytes stored on blockchain for full nodes, so Segregated Withness transactions might be cheaper only because Bitcoin Core says lets not count the signature size part for fee calculation for Segregated Withness transactions, but the signature size part using the same bandwich and storage capacity of full nodes in both cases. Its basically political decision policy to make Segregated Withness transactions more popular with miners paying the cost with reduced fees for these Segregated Withness transactions yet they have to use the same bandwich and storage capacity requirements compared to today transactions. I wish I could return to my young times when I was clueless too though, the life was much easier back then! |
|
|
|
|
Hopefully your right and Bitcoin Core does not announce it is supporting 2 MB hardfork compatible with Bitcoin Classic in the last hope to try keep control over Bitcoin.
But the real reason why Bitcoin Core loosing control over future of Bitcoin are those developers who try make Bitcoin blockchain just a settlement layer for offchain and centralized solutions for transactions, while Bitcoin Classic aim is continue with Satoshi plan to make decentralized P2P transactions possible right on Bitcoin blockchain, as long as technology allows it - average computer necessary for full node not the obsolete Rasberry PIs device or cheap virtual servers requirement today to run full node in Bitcoin Core vision.
I know who failed, and Bitcoin Core will not gain my trust even if they supports 2 MB hardfork compatible with Bitcoin Classic, because Bitcoin Core for example still planning RBF (relay by fee) feature which kills 0 confirmations as a payment possibility because Bitcoin Core vision is Bitcoin as a settlement layer for offchain transactions, not a decentralized P2P transactions possible on Bitcoin blockchain for payments.
Thus upgrading to future Bitcoin Core 0.12 is not advised, unless you completly agree with Bitcoin Core vision to keep Bitcoin small with direct blockchain transactions only for elite.
PS: loosing full nodes decentralization is just a FUD, Bitcoin Classic full nodes will work on average computers in future as well, thus keeping the full node decentralization intact
|
|
|
|
I always think of a classic version of any software as the oldest version that it began with... It doesn't seem right using classic to describe a new version/fork of a wallet.
The point of Bitcoin Classic is indeed follow the original Bitcoin vision and dont adding new planned Bitcoin Core features going against this. Bitcoin Core attempt to ignore majority view and the censorship of its supporteers really shed bad light on Bitcoin, but luckilly the situation is resolved before features like RBF were implemented. It is clear Blockstream devs cannot expect such features will be added to Bitcoin anymore. BTW brilliant move to get support from all major Bitcoin players to follow original Bitcoin vision from now on again, definitivelly yesterday will come to Bitcoin history as very important day when the attempt of censorship and overtaking the Bitcoin project to Blockstream goals ended. |
|
|
|
I think the answer is simple: for the vast majority of transactions for the vast majority of people there is no material advantage to using Bitcoin so why would they use it?
Not when you shop at your local store where cash is best and this represents majority of transactions indeed. But when you start consider cross border payments and transfers, this is Bitcoin main advantage as other options are ineffecient and costly today - but your right these cross border payments and transfers are not used by majority of people, but Bitcoin is limited with number of transactions per second anyway so no big deal Bitcoin has no reason to be used everywhere and by everyone |
|
|
|
|
What do you think about the reasons there are only about half shares voting petition? I think substantional part of the non voters dont know about the voting feature. What about making announcement on the front page of JD about the voting + maybe doing it a bit simpler (checkboxes) + better description of petitions (mostly the one line gives so little info)
|
|
|
|
|
