Incredible, this is why bitcoin has started to be liked by many people, because bitcoin is easy to use and Fee payments are very cheap
Despite the recent updates (such as the implementation of lightning network), the 1MB restriction on block size is causing issues for Bitcoin users for the last 4-5 years. And my guess is that sometime soon we'll witness another repeat of what we had in December 2017. There will be hundreds of thousands of pending transactions, and the tx fee may rise to unaffordable levels. This might happen during the next bull run. Today we have indeed high fees, but they drop significantly (even down to 1-2 sat/vbyte) now and then (almost on the daily basis), which in 2017 didn't happen. I still think that what happened in December 2017 was also caused by a spam attack, SegWit and the incipient LN just don't count *that* much. What did help was that some services implemented bulk transfers. Here I don't have numbers though. I think that we also have now some sort of fee FOMO: people are simply afraid to try a reasonable/lower fee for transactions that can wait. Well, bulk transfers are definitely taking some load off the network. But I don't agree with you when you claim that people are afraid to try low-fee transactions. Last week, there were a couple of incidents when I paid around 8 Sat/Byte for my transactions and in the end they got confirmed after 12 hours. Fortunately, those were not urgent. |
|
|
|
|
South Africa struggling at 127/5 with just 17 more overs to go. Since they have lost so many wickets, they'll be in a disadvantage in case rain interrupts play. And I wonder why Kohli is not going for the kill, as he is persisting with part-time bowlers such as Kedar Jadhav. He needs to remember that NRR can be very important later on.
|
|
|
|
|
There are some rumors ongoing, but I am not sure about it. Some individuals are claiming that a criminal group which is behind the hacking of several crypto-currency exchanges have made investments in a number of ICOs, using the stolen ETH and BTC. If this is true, then we have ICOs now used for coin mixing purposes as well.
|
|
|
|
Incredible, this is why bitcoin has started to be liked by many people, because bitcoin is easy to use and Fee payments are very cheap
Despite the recent updates (such as the implementation of lightning network), the 1MB restriction on block size is causing issues for Bitcoin users for the last 4-5 years. And my guess is that sometime soon we'll witness another repeat of what we had in December 2017. There will be hundreds of thousands of pending transactions, and the tx fee may rise to unaffordable levels. This might happen during the next bull run. |
|
|
|
This is somewhat a mixed news for the viability of BTC. Increasing difficulty means that for both Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash, the mining is becoming more centralized. Small-scale and medium-scale miners will be gradually pushed out (unless they shift to some altcoin such as Bitcoin Gold) and the larger mining pools will increase their monopoly.
We have had enough historical evidence that higher difficulty doesn't lead to centralization. I would say that today with all time high difficulty levels, Bitcoin's total hashrate distribution is more distributed than in the years before with much lower difficulty levels. Bitmain and its pools have seen their share of the network decrease substantially throughout the last 15 months, which once again points out that even the larger players face difficulties. As for BTG, that coin is mined with GPU's, so the ASICS used to mine Bitcoin are useless in this case. My logic was that in case the difficulty increases, then the miners will be needing mining rigs with higher hash power. I thought that only the large scale miners would be able to afford those. But if your post is correct, then the share of the larger mining pools is going down. And that is a good news. I don't want any 51% attack with Bitcoin (just a few days back we had one with BCH). |
|
|
|
India's loss to NZ was a miserable one in the warm-up matches but hoping they come back strong and beat SA who has already lost 2 matches. India's fielding and bowling has always been poor but they depend on their batting mainly so hope they manage it this time and put up a huge score or take max wickets. They have mostly won against SA in 2018 so hoping for the same performance here.
The problem for the Indian batsmen is that historically they have performed poorly in English pitches. Virat Kohli is the only batsmen who is not affected by this. He remains in top form, irrespective of the playing conditions. But he needs support from the others. I am especially concerned about the openers. They have shown poor form during the warm-up matches. |
|
|
|
Past is not a guarantee of future
I hope BTC hits at least 10k and keep the price for June, let's see
I'm not a big fan of this kind of thought, today is another time, another news, another kind of thoughts, it's not the same...
Agreed. The Bitcoin price can't be predicted based on the past charts. But I hope that 2019 turn out to be a good year for Bitcoin holders. In 2018, Bitcoin lost 85% of its value, and nosedived from $20,000 per coin to just $3,000 per coin. And this fall was not justified, as the user-base and popularity remained as strong as ever. I regard 2019 as an year of consolidation and 2020 as an year in which we'll climb new peaks. |
|
|
|
|
My third consecutive loss. Now Royse is on top with 7 points... congrats to him...
The reason why I picked Afghanistan for today's match was because of the poor performances by SL during the warm-ups. But I overlooked the inexperience of the Afghan side and over-estimated them.
Very important match tomorrow, and I have made a bet in favor of South Africa. Let's see what happens.
|
|
|
|
|
This is somewhat a mixed news for the viability of BTC. Increasing difficulty means that for both Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash, the mining is becoming more centralized. Small-scale and medium-scale miners will be gradually pushed out (unless they shift to some altcoin such as Bitcoin Gold) and the larger mining pools will increase their monopoly.
|
|
|
|
|
So it looks like even McAfee is not serious about this new coin. I am not sure about his real intention behind this move... perhaps he is after the fame... or he is after some extra funds (or both). BTW, I hope that his plans for the 2020 presidential campaign is proceeding well. Don't want him to the president of the United States... but some publicity would be good for crypto.
|
|
|
|
If you join to https://www.blockchain.com/es/btc/unconfirmed-transactions and see how much fees are paying the last transactions, you will find values between 0.0003 and 0.001, so, fees are getting high again, now we have a total of 36k unconfirmed transactions, so, maybe the network is under attack and that's why we have to pay these high fees. i'm not sure. 36 K is normal, I'd say. Back in 2017, at one point we had close to 250,000 unconfirmed transactions and some of the users were paying as much as $50 or $60 to get immediate confirmations. Considering the fact that approx. 5,000 transactions can be included in a single block, this backlog should get cleared within a day or two at the most. |
|
|
|
74 for 5 now. Afghanistan is going to lose the match, I didn't hope that. I thought Srilanka will be the only team with zero win match. It was an easy target to chase but Afghanistan messed it.
Afghanistan at 134/7 now, with 53 needed off 69 balls. Their lack of experience shows up once again. And this is not the first time that they are losing a match after restricting the rivals to 200 or less. On the other hand, the Sri Lankan bowlers are very experienced (Pradeep, Perera, Lakmal.etc), and they should pull this one through. Edit: Sri Lanka are currently ~15 minutes behind as far as the over rate is concerned. This should mean automatic suspension for the captain for the next match. |
|
|
|
It looks cheap because the value is $500k but if the value is less than $50, a $5 transaction fee is too high! I am using a local wallet and yesterday the fee was 0.0006 btc that is for the low fee and the highest fee for faster transaction was 0.0017 btc not fair!
No, you can have transaction of $50 with far less fee than $5, it depends on your choosen fee. If you pay 1 satoshi per byte, I guess fee will not be beyond $0.05, in addition, if you have a lot of inputs, higher fee will be required. In that case, you can merge all the inputs into one when the fee is lower. At 1 Sat/Byte, your transaction may take ages to get confirmed. I would recommend a minimum of 10 Sat/Byte, to get a confirmation within 4 to 6 hours. And that is going to cost you in the range of $0.20 to $0.30, which I would say is reasonable. In case you want an immediate confirmation, then I recommend paying 200 to 250 Sat/Byte, which will cost you around $5. |
|
|
|
No, ICO is not dead yet, but it is becoming less and less popular every day because new projects look very bad and bring little money
The ICO promoters are very unreasonable nowadays. Even ordinary projects are asking for hard-caps in excess of $100 million. Rather than over-pricing the ICOs, they should be offering them at a discount (especially after taking in to account the current market conditions). But they are too greedy to do that, and as a result no one is investing in these projects now. |
|
|
|
|
I am holding some coins and tokens such as KWH and DAN. These coins have lost more than 99% of their value and they can't be traded (as the deposit fee is greater than their net worth). I would have deleted them from my wallet if such an option was there. But for now I can't do anything with them, and I am forced to keep them in my wallet.
|
|
|
|
|
All of the anonymous coins (Monero, Verge, Zcash, Deep Onion, Veil.etc) are going down for the past many months and the trends are quite negative. On top of that, the law enforcement agencies have taken up a special interest with Monero, as it is now widely used in various dark markets for the purchase of contraband of different types.
|
|
|
|
The Srilanka innings is finished and they achieve 201 runs in 36.5 overs. And the targets is 187 in 41 overs based on DLLS methods. So I think the DLLS method makes a little bit difficult for Afghanistan. What do you think really?
Oh... that is very fair then. I was thinking that AFG may need to score more than the SL total. And since they need to score only 187, I'd say that the DLS method has favored Afghanistan here. SL needs to take wickets. The target is very low and they can't win this match by bowling economically. The reduction of overs from 50 to 41 is not going to affect AFG, because the match will be decided long before the 41st over. |
|
|
|
So started off the game very well and their 2nd wicket fell at 144 but after that things start collapsing like deck of cards and struggling with 187/8 and due to rain math is halted now . Afghanistan if can bat well can have a turn in this match and win it .
All out for 201. Sri Lanka is looking completely out of sorts in this tournament so far. Reminds me of the 2003 world cup, when they got beaten by Kenya. Afghanistan is a test playing nation and can't be compared to Kenya, but even then a loss today will be hugely disappointing for the islanders. But all is not lost yet. Afghan batting lineup is not that strong. |
|
|
|
I was hoping that Afghanistan will be having an easy victory, but the rain interruption disrupted everything. And now AFG will have to chase down a bigger total in 41 overs. And Afghanistan is not really known for winning close matches and performing under pressure. After two matches with consecutive zero points, I may end up with another one today.  |
|
|
|
|
And how many of the Bitcoin users can afford to move $500,000 in one go? Let's talk about ordinary Bitcoin users, who have less than BTC0.10 in their wallet. I have been an active user here for 3 years. I still don't have 1 BTC in my wallet. Most of the times, they move less than BTC0.01, and for doing so they need to pay somewhere between 5% and 10% of that amount as the transaction fee.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
