Or that they will have 33% at all in any point... So, if those are the maths, I guess they will have less power than speculated (or the maths I've seen previously were incorrect )

Anyways, I think this reinforces my opinion...

So I guess this is the same facility that came in the news around here a while ago. I remember seeing in the thread that they would have around 60% hashrate using their peak power. I'll link that if I find it again.

Yes, that would "screw us all", it would definitely be bad for Bitcoin. But they can't fill the facility with miners in a "timely manner" for them to be a danger to the network stability. High number of miners have to be deployed strategically and a few at a time. I'm not even sure if there's software that can handle all those miners in one single facility in an easy to maintain way. It's not feasible for them to have in something like a months time enough hashrate on that facility for them to be a danger to the network. Secondly, the facility won't exclusively serve Bitcoin or cryptocurrency mining. So I don't think this poses any danger to network stability.

3) Satoshi, Core devs, Bitcoin related website maintainers (theymos, Cobra...)

4) Defining moments were the start of the network, early miners, network updates, halvings, forks (the one in 2013 and that one time a bad client made a transaction which "created" millions of coins)

5) Bitcoins for pizza has to appear

6) Do not miss Andreas Antonopoulos, Nick Szabo, Mike Hearn and theymos.

Very interesting, is this the datacenter that was discussed around here previously that was a co-ownership and that at full capacity would have a huge share of the networks hashrate? If so I guess this is further proof why they won't have 50%+ hashrate, it's not going to be exclusively for mining Bitcoin...

I guess Bitmain just wants to venture in other things beyond Bitcoin and they do very well. Using renewable energies is also very good. I wonder if they can run miners cheaper than, say, HaoBTC.

Also, this thread should probably be on mining since it talks about something that is designed to (also) be a mining facility

So I guess it's explained why the address has been used many times in previous years... Maybe this was just news because the website in question had nothing else to write about?

I can't believe it but this feature was actually introduced! I'm pleasantly surprised

Wed, it's difficult to post a screenshot of it, but on the menu BitcoinNewsMagazine referred to you have how much a unit of your fiat currency equates to Bitcoin in the moment, at the top. That's where you have to swipe left. When you swipe, it changes to mB and then to Bitcoins.

Now's a good time to do it

Folks are finally getting more and more up to date, from what I can see on bitnodes...

I seriously don't think there's more that can be done regarding this. Things have happened, there's news about that, the information is out there... Now people should try to inform themselves and learn that information is important.

This began way before halving, many cloud mining sites bailed on users throughout the years...

That's not really things happening to Bitcoin. What's happening right now is SegWit, for example.

So will the keys change hands? Or the failsafe code will be executed (if so, why)?

EDIT: Now I see, I guess it's because of this that the message will be displayed.

The address they list has been used since 2013, maybe they've accepted it for a long time but didn't really publicise it? Or maybe they're reusing an address... Either way, good of them for accepting Bitcoin and even better that they have a few Bitcoins already

Not the first time that news like these appear. I think 400 BTC in Venezuela is quite reasonable from what I read about the country. Not many people can access the internet (and even less know about Bitcoin), a reasonable part of the population has more to worry about in their daily lives and Bitcoin (especially mining operations) are frowned upon by government and authorities. I hope they can have a new government and skip this crisis. Bitcoin will certainly help some people keeping their assets.

1. QR Codes allow this. You should be able to still copy the address manually if you'd like. breadwallet does this quite well. Only thing that might be different is displaying first bits or something like that on the transactions section.

2. This creates a privacy problem. But this is probably feasible, if you want to opt in.

3. So what would you like, a banking app or a Bitcoin app? Unfeasible to join both. It's like joining McDonalds and Burger King on the same building...

4. Not sure about this one, don't really have a comment about it, but why not if there are users interested...

I agree with calkob, you must have missed breadwallet


breadwallet has the pros you like and doesn't have the cons If the objective is displaying an ID that makes payments easier, you can display QR codes and have pretty much any wallet read them.

I don't see a mine this big being built out of nowhere with all this hashpower. They will not be able to fill the mine timely enough to own a dangerously high percentage of hashrate... So I don't think centralization can be questioned here, at least for now...

"Dual" mining would split users. There would be a need for exchanges to deal with both chains and payment channels and websites to accept payments in both chains. Mining whatever fits the miner best at the given time would also create a few problems as nobody would really know what that miner supports (bigger or smaller blocks). I have no further ideas regarding this, but I do not think this is the way to go. We either raise blocks or we don't, it would be difficult to keep people "in between". Meanwhile we have SegWit to hold us a few more months.

Only checked the forum now, couldn't access for the last 12+ hours, more or less. Curious thing is the beta forum was available meanwhile... Thanks to theymos for the hard work getting this back up.

He was involved with another altcoin, check his post history.

I remember this piece of news lightly from earlier... Why don't they just secure their platforms? Much easier to hire technicians who know a thing or two about security and have them full time than hoarding Bitcoin (and taking it away from people who actually want to buy it in the market), have it forgotten in cold storage (or foolishly in some hot wallet thrown around). I don't really understand this mentality of "damage control", prevention is the way to go...

Finally we'll see the conclusion of all those discussions about capacity increases a few months earlier. I think best case scenario here is SegWit will keep us on track for the next year or two. Although I'm not entirely convinced of SegWit's capacity in increasing capacity long term, it's probably the best for now... And Core devs wouldn't be phasing this out if it wasn't a good solution.


Well, I think we can say that testing phase has already gone. I know testnets can't really predict everything on the mainnet, but it's the best we have. I think we can say this is the most ready to go live as possible.