Depends on an exchanger. Maybe its good to keep btc at different exchanges at the same time.
Definitely. I never keep all my eggs in one basket. For the coins I keep out of cold storage, I spread them out between BTCE, Bitfinex, and Bitstamp. I don't feel great about any of them, but there's no other way to trade.  Wouldn't it just be better to keep your coins in your own "hot wallet" that you control and only keep coins at an exchange when you wish to sell for fiat? |
|
|
|
I originally thought that bitcoin ATMs were costly and impractical, therefore would not succeed. I was wrong.
Most interesting development is Ukraine. where they appearantly changed the software in all conventional ATMs to include bitcoin. In a country with a really unsafe currency. That is big.
Bitcoin ATM is cheap if you amortized it over a year. If you charge your customer 2-3% per transaction, you will ROI very quick if there is volume. There are a lot of uncertainties regarding bitcoin that would make this less then a sure thing. For example regulation could make it so that bitcoin is all but outlawed. Your post also assumes that the level of consumer adoption will hold steady or rise, which is also not certain. |
|
|
|
Because if the block has to be a certain size then they have to either pad it out to the required size OR put in paying transactions. So rational miners will opt to fill out to the required size with fee paying transactions rather than just fill out with nothing. Miners will think "might as well get the fees since the block must be the required size anyway"
There's already incentive to do that now. "They might as well get the fees" already exists. I may have missed something but is there any substantial (or even any at all) mining advantage to minting blocks with fewer transactions with the current structure? Yes, the size of the block is directly related to the average orphaned block cost to the miner. The reason this proposal works is that it increases the orphan cost across the board for all miners. Really? I thought I heard one of the devs saying it wasn't really true anymore. Maybe time for the experts to chime in as you suggested. (certainly seems like a hard fork would be required.) An additional point -- I assume the reason for the cost is that it takes longer to calculate the merkle root, so instead of just stuffing data in (and bloating the chain), some fixed data set could be used to construct an alternate merkle root. If it takes additional time for a pool to gather the TX and put them in the block when they find it, then there is a possibility that someone else could find a block and broadcast it to the network during that time. If a pool were to spend one additional second doing this then there would be a 1 in 600 chance that their block will be orphaned. |
|
|
|
Could take even longer..... forever.
The Fed portfolio will eventually be able to be shrunk to a more manageable size, it will just take many years and careful planning to ensure that doing so does not create economic chaos. |
|
|
|
They will end very bad if they commited the error of bombing Russia, thats like suicide.
Georgia did the same mistake in 2008 (killing Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia), and paid very dearly for that. Georgia 2008 and Ukraine 2014 are very similar. Both the governments fail to realize that the NATO is just using their soldiers as cannon fodder. In case of a war with Russia, the NATO will offer no support at all, just like what happened in 2008. They will end very bad if they commited the error of bombing Russia, thats like suicide.
Russia is a military superpower, it isn't as strong as it was 30 years ago, but still very strong. Any country that tries to attack Russia (or any other superpower) is making a mistake Ukrainian probably hoping US will intervene. Georgia incident should teach them not to rely on US and Europe so much. I would not count on Obama using the US military |
|
|
|
Wifi has the advantage of already being available. Optical communication using inexpensive LEDs and basic optics may be useful in some locations to create a 10 Mbit/s full duplex Ethernet point-to-point link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RONJAhttp://ronja.twibright.com/ Ronja 10M Metropolis Provides 10Mbps full duplex on a full duplex AUI interface. The distance is 1.4km with 130mm lenses and 900m with 90mm lenses. The transmitter is a 625nm LED diode, output power 17mW and the optics is made from loupes. This "wifi hotspot" still needs to be connected to the rest of the internet via traditional means (an ISP) |
|
|
|
The traders pay interest on the loans out of their exchange wallet. It is a way to leverage your balance to get a larger return. Any borrowing in any currency requires repayment of a certain percentage over what you borrowed. Have you ever bought a home? A car? Same thing.
I'm well aware of how trading accounts work, and loans in general. Thats why i find i it odd anyone thinks this is a killer app for Bitcoin. I think they are referring to the ability to stockpile coins and have them actually grow the way fiat used to before the monetary system was destroyed. It creates more demand because holding them is even more profitable. It should be noted that this would not be without risk. In the event of a market crash/spike then the exchange may not be able to liquidate traders' positions at a rate that would allow them to fully repay their margin loans. The lender would have to take a loss if this were to happen. QFT. Increased reward is almost always associated with increased level of risk. Remember that. And don't get too greedy. This is not 100% true in terms of lending to margin traders as any loan could potentially end up turning bad regardless of the interest rate in relation to the market rate Has been addressed here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=667105.msg7533611#msg7533611I would not say this has been "addressed" as in a solution has been found/implemented but rather has been discussed. |
|
|
|
Amazon could offer to accept Bitcoin for merchants who want to accept Bitcoin. The Amazon payment gateway could accept Bitcoin without Amazon the company having to hold Bitcoin.
They would need to implement some kind of escrow service if they were to do this. If a amazon merchant were to receive bitcoin but did not ship or shipped products that were inferior to what was advertised then the amazon reputation would be damaged They already have escrow system in place for fiat. Doing escrow on bitcoin is a little harder as the price and go up and down in matter of minute, and retail profit is razor thin to withstand this kind of price movement. The system they have in place makes it so they can take away funds from future sales, but if future sales do not exceed the amount in dispute then amazon can recover the funds that were paid |
|
|
|
Now Angela Merkel will learn what PRISM is.
I tend to think she already knew of the existence of PRISM its all just pretending just like she pretended how furious she was when she learned that the NSA is tapping her phone. And we all know that her government is in bed with the usa gov http://rt.com/news/us-drones-germany-ramstein-625/Yeah I'm sure Merkel must have known of the NSA's blanket surveillance, think she was just giving lip service to the general public. Would like to get me one of those encrypted phones  She did not know about the NSA spying. She was actually the subject of the spying for some time |
|
|
|
-snip- Doing a 51% attack is like shooting yourself in the face. You get absolutely nothing out of it. If you control enough hashing power to perform that, why destroy the very thing that's making you money?
By denying every other miner any profits you can almost double the bitcoin income. This will make other miners give up, and then you can gradually turn off some of the miners and save cost. The risk for this is already very high but it doesn't seem to influenced the price. It's hard to tell if this is because the majority is in denial about it or just doesn't care. If it's the latter it means it would be very profitable. In other words, you would collapse the market and earn $00. What people are afraid of is that an attacker would have something other then a financial motivation to launch an attack. |
|
|
|
I wouldn't use them for too high of volume. After seeing some of those stories, I definitely figured it best not to be a liquidity provider there. And I prefer to deal in cash only -- P2P and not through the site directly.
Local bitcoins does allow you to meet to do face to face transactions that are not part of their escrow service. Sure, I know. The only way I use LBC is for in-person cash transactions. However, to be a liquidity provider and be able to charge markup over/under the exchange price, you need to have a good reputation. That means using LBC escrow (paying fees) and garnering confirmed feedback. There have been several threads on here about attempted robberies at face-to-face LBC transactions when the buyer has tried to steal the seller's phone so the release code could be entered. |
|
|
|
The articles that I have read say that the value of the coins is presently $19 million and the price paid is unclear. |
|
|
|
Would it take governments deciding to hold bitcoin in their reserves for bitcoin's market cap to reach these heights or not? Or is private capital sufficient to get bitcoin to the 100 billion, 500 billion or 2 trillion dollar market caps mentioned?
When some country buys another currency for reserves, yes that strengthens the foreign currency. The only reason to have reserves, is to manipulate (also called stabilize) a local fiat currency. If the fiat currency in question were allowed to float, reserves would not be necessary. If a country has a trade surplus and nothing to spend the excess currency that is pouring into the country then it will have foreign currency reserves. |
|
|
|
Russia and US are always against the other and try to defeat the other. The USA is the largest economy and the dollar is accepted as most reliable and valuable currency by most people in the world. Most goods or services are priced at dollar, even the cryptocurrency at the moment. To crash dollar system is not easy by any country even the Russia. In the future BTC will get accepted by the majority of the population then maybe BTC has the chance to take over dollar.
Why would Russia want to destroy this? They have been our ally for a world war and are our trading partner now Have not u heard of cold war between Russia and USA ? Moreover, Putin does not like US's stance on Ukraine in the recent aggression. Yes we had the cold war, however there was not actually any fighting directly between the US and Russia. Putin is an old KGB agent though. Old habits die hard. I don't think he can do much more than saber rattle quite frankly. In a real shooting war with the west he would be way out gunned. This may be true but Russia has a lot to lose and the chances of them loosing are greater now then in the cold war. This is all about prediction. U never know what is actually happening deep inside China & Russia, because they are not so open like Western world. China holds trillions of dollars and trillions more of other countries currencies. If China were to destroy the US dollar then they would lose money on those dollar investments. In reality, dollar holding does not take place in a country's territory. It is shown on book. That is the reason US could freeze Putin's holding in swiss banks, because in reality the dollar is physically stored at US, where swiss bank cant do anything. They just need to erase Putin's holding from the book. So, in short, China cant destroy USD directly like that. It is achieved through business and sanctions. And if Russia unites with China, US's business activity will surely take a hit. The point is that if China were to take actions that were damaging to to the US Dollar then they themselves would take a hit as holders of Trillions of US Dollars. U r missing the point. When u say a non-US country is holding USD, it does not mean they are physically holding that. They are holding an equivalent value. USD fall just needs a value change for them. It hurts only USA. If a country is holding dollars then these dollars can purchase a certain amount of goods/services. If the value of the dollar were to fall then the dollars that the country is holding can now purchase less goods/services |
|
|
|
That was easy. No FOIA needed. No tinfoil hat needed. What are all the silly "we will never know because gov etc. etc." posters going to post about now? What Tim is doing with the coins should help not only increase world wide adoption but also improve bitcoin's image |
|
|
|
Holy cow. I thought it would be a bit longer before they implemented it - guess Overstock accepting it was a big turning point for them. Well it's nice to see more major retailers takig Bitcoin seriously, the more merchants there are the more consumers will be interested in it and possibly begin using it.
not too surprising. Tiger Direct has been accepting it for awhile now and I am sure Newegg doesn't like loosing all their potential bitcoin customers to their competition. Hopefully more sites will realize the potential ability to raise their market share by accepting bitcoin. |
|
|
|
If this did really work there would be no gambling sites because they would be bankrupt because everyone would be using this method.
Gambling sites do lose a lot of money due to people gambling using the Martingale system. In fact, the majority of people who use the Martingale system properly will make money. There are gambling sites that have more losing days than winning days because they have a lot of customers who are using Martingale correctly. Of course, they win a lot more. And when they have winning days, the amounts they win are *much* greater than the amounts they lose. That's what Martingale does. It's like a reverse lottery where the house gives you $1, but one in a million times they blow up your house, kill your children, and cut off a few of your fingers. (Perhaps the Hunger Games are a better analogy.) Do you have a source on this? The Martingale system can effectively be countered by a small spread between the minimum and maximum bet size allowed. 7 For example, if the min bet was .01 BTC and the max bet was 1.0 BTC then the gambler would only need a loosing streak of 7 in order to fail. After the 7th loss the better will have just placed a bet of .64 BTC and would need to bet 1.28 BTC in order to continue using the system properly. If they only bet 1 BTC and win then they would still be down .28 BTC |
|
|
|
Either bitcoin itself or an IMF crypto is likely to be used for international settlements and primary reserves 5 to 10 years from now. It would be foolish to create a novel crypto, with an untested codebase and protocol, and place it in such a central role in the global economy. Therefore, I expect bitcoin to fulfill that role.
but what about other promising altcoins? VeriCoin, Monero or DarkCoin or NXT? I put my money proportionally into 9 cryptos, instead of all into BTC. What if BTC plummets to $150?? In general all of the crypto coins trade at a steady rate per BTC. In other words, when priced in fiat when BTC goes up all the other cryptos go up by the same amount. |
|
|
|
Seems a bit of stretch to try to apply political motivations to a technical issue. It's also a stretch to propose that it's even technically possible at all to force miners to include transactions into blocks. The Bitcoin code could be changed so that if a block is under a certain size (X Kb) then the miners must input "junk" data in the block to increase the size to X kb. |
|
|
|
I am quite sure there will be more BTC hard forks with protocol changes. I have read some of the proposals. I don't think there has been much discussion on energy saving though.
There are dozens and dozens of theads discussing the energy consumption of the Bitcoin network and proposals on how to "fix" it - mostly by going from POW to POS but there are some others to be found with some searching. Just search for "Bitcoin" and "POS" and you will find some hard fork proposals that might interest you but, of course, do not interest any of the miners who just bought ASICs. PoS has it's problems, it's currently on the prohibited changes list. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Prohibited_changesPoS would simply make Bitcoin almost centralized since so few control so high of a percentage of all the coins |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
