Really fast moving thread Ha-ha 12Ui3ssnJK71akxAgvVM3WtLa2EHidT3Xn
|
|
|
This is the best head line I've read in some time.
I have to admit I clicked here Because I was going what is this about XD
|
|
|
It seems that Bitstar is kindda busy
So I'm out for this campaign
Just delist me, thanks
This spot I believe just opened since it is a full member rank so will fill it in Edit In: Left no confirmation
|
|
|
Thanks for the payout Confirming payment as well.
|
|
|
How do you expect someone to answer this?
What I was thinking Someone forgot to put a Slash in there since 1BTC is not 600 BTC ^_^
|
|
|
It did quite a bit more than just go from 15 to 1200 and back to the current 330's.
I've posted a similar thing a few times before, but I'll try to be a bit more concise here.
A look at bubble peak / correction bottom magnitudes in BTC. Numbers rough estimates:
2011: peak in the 30's, post-peak bottom: 6.25% of peak price. 2013: peak at 266, post-peak bottom: 15% of peak price. 2013-2014: peak at 1166. post-peak bottom: TBD
If the crash is as severe as in 2011, the bottom would be about 73 USD/BTC. If the crash is as severe as in 2013, bubble 1, that would put the bottom at 175 USD.
If you assume bubble volatility is decreasing, you can do some horrible overinterpretation of the two datapoints we have.
Assuming a linear decrease in volatility, comparing the known peak-to-bottom ratios, you would expect a bottom at 23.75% of peak. That's 277 USD.
Assuming the ratio itself changes as much this time as it did pefore, you'd expect a bottom at 36%, 420 USD. That expectation obviously has been invalidated.
Note: These are not predictions. Maybe interesting for post fact evaluation of overall market changes.
So in other words if it follows the patterns We are in for a long duration price drop that will hurt before we see some good Get ready to feel the pain, on the other hand I wonder what that means for a rise and the length of time till the bottom is reached.
|
|
|
Was foreseeable, wasn't it? It's gradually approaching the bubble's burst
Yep although I did see an interesting video the other day that might either get some people foaming in the mouth Or get some people to say lets just keep printing more money guys How the Economy works by Ray Dalio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHe0bXAIuk0
|
|
|
This kinda surprises me. You are a full member. You should know how these things works.
I wouldn't expect all Full Members to get the technicals such as change, unspent tx ID's etc need a few Turr Demester Videos and Andreas Antopoulos videos to get a better idea of that But I did learn something apparently Blockchain has a generous function to speed up transactions and it can be pretty generous, although on average its still going to be in the same block most times with a normal fee or if its a large enough amount no fee. Live and learn
|
|
|
<0.1 BTC a share.
This should get interesting.
It should now were in a state of limbo How low can it go I guess is the short to midterm question Seeing 0.08
|
|
|
Ok that makes sense, thank you. Can you tell me whether it's possible to combine tiny BTC amounts in your wallet and spend them? Say you have ten 0.00010 BTC amounts, can you make them into one 0.0010 BTC? Also you did not answer this part, do you care to? "How does the entire world know that I received 2.0 mBTC, sent 0.4 mBTC, and am only left (of the original 2.0 mBTC) with only 0.6 mBTC? Is that supposed to be public knowledge? And, as before, why are such big amounts taken from my initial sum, just for sending small micropayments?
I am left with 0.6 mBTC (in my Blockchain.info wallet) + 0.4 mBTC (in my online wallet) = 1.0 mBTC out of a initial sum of 2.0 mBTC, so half my money was taken by the miners in just one micro transaction?" To answer the first question. Bitcoin does it automatically when it gathers the change it searches for the unspent outputs then lumps them all together to make that 0.001 (Assuming they are all in the same wallet of course) (If you wait long enough and get coin age you can do it for free but its a factor of time and priority on the network so the fee speeds it up) __ Second Part (small error) 1.6 I believe not 0.6 It's confirmed in the blockchain the ledger records that you recieved 2.0 mbtc from someone then it records that you sent 0.4 mbtc to someone else and deducts that amount from the ledger so the amount of unspent transactions is 1.6 mBtc. The miners all observe this transaction and confirm that you sent it to Bob and he recieved the balance. So yep the record of the transaction is recorded and public knowledge, the person behind the address is unknown usually hence psuedo anonymous. And with small amounts the transaction fee would probally eat the remainder. As mintxfee 0.0001 (BTC) https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_feesSending A transaction may be safely sent without fees if these conditions are met: ## It is smaller than 1,000 bytes. ## All outputs are 0.01 BTC or larger. ## Its priority is large enough (see the Technical Info section below) Otherwise, the reference implementation will round up the transaction size to the next thousand bytes and add a fee of 0.1 mBTC (0.0001 BTC) per thousand bytes[1]. As an example, a fee of 0.1 mBTC (0.0001 BTC) would be added to a 746 byte transaction, and a fee of 0.2 mBTC (0.0002 BTC) would be added to a 1001 byte transaction. Users may increase the default 0.0001 BTC/kB fee setting, but cannot control transaction fees for each transaction. Bitcoin-Qt does prompt the user to accept the fee before the transaction is sent (they may cancel the transaction if they are not willing to pay the fee). Also as a note If your using an older Bitcoin client it has a higher default transaction fee than the new ones So its possible it used 1 MBTC as the fee. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=219504.0From 0.8.2 onwards fee dropped from 0.0005 to 0.0001
|
|
|
But them being inactive doesn't invalidate all their previous feedbacks. Some people who were marked as scammers could then be neutralised or even become green trusted. With regards to the negative left by Luke on bipolarbob, it was arguably a valid warning at the time, but it seems that his deals have been confirmed to be legit so it probably should be removed, but that's obviously up to him. Has anyone asked him to reconsider the feedback?
I would naturally be suspicious of any strong account that goes offline for any significant period of time and suddenly reappears. Accordingly, I would no longer trust them by default. That makes a lot of sense A time function for trust seems like a good idea since a constant history of good lending is used to determine a credit score in finance. Why wouldn't it be the same for trust a good reputation is built up with time and consistency after all. (Sort of like Ebay lol)
|
|
|
For some reason or other I recall someone else taking Bitcoin before them Not sure who though, anyways its good news still wish cloud hosting on Digital Ocean took crypto Pain in the butt with paypal and similar options.
|
|
|
Fiat is dirty with Ebola, use Bitcoin!
How does Ebola have any affect on Bitcoin, I guess it creates an externality on future income by generating deaths and its possible some of those users would have bought Bitcoin someday being a future lost cost. Not really any immediate impact though.
|
|
|
Hmm probally just had the inputs broken up into pieces See change https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/ChangeWhen the output of a transaction is used as the input of another transaction, it must be spent in its entirety. Sometimes the coin value of the output is higher than what the user wishes to pay. In this case, the client generates a new Bitcoin address, and sends the difference back to this address. This is known as change. Take the case of the transaction http://blockchain.info/tx/0a1c0b1ec0ac55a45b1555202daf2e08419648096f5bcc4267898d420dffef87, a 10.89 BTC previously unspent output was spent by the client. 10 BTC was the payment amount, and 0.89 BTC was the amount of change returned. The client can't spend just 10.00 BTC out of a 10.89 BTC payment anymore than a person can spend $1 out of a $20 bill. The entire 10.89 BTC unspent output became the input of this new transaction and in the process produced are two new unspent outputs which have a combined value of 10.89 BTC. The 10.89 BTC is now "spent" and effectively destroyed because the network will prevent it from ever being spent again. Those unspent outputs can now become inputs for future transactions. In this transaction, the fee is 0 but if there was a tx fee paid it would be the difference between the inputs and the outputs. (i.e. 10.89 BTC input and a 10.88 BTC output = 0.01 BTC fee). In other words the balance is there Blockchain is a rough measure the amount in an address may not be exactly the total amount that's actually in there because everytime a transaction is spent change is created and put in another address When they are added back together they become a full balance.
|
|
|
Is this all down to the populations of sovereign nation states having control of their countries means of production ? Or is it down to a global and deregulated free market facilitating gross monopolistic accumulation ? It would take the worlds richest man, Carlos Slim, 220 years to spend his fortune - and that, at a rate of $1,000,000 per day - according to the latest report on wealth inequality from Oxfam. This is all down to socialism. Isn't it ? Really 220 Years Slim may as well just invest in space development and build a personal gundam fleet with some Space Ready Ships (They can build the lightdrive and put it in later) Find other uses for them in the short term. Then to top it all of create the worlds first mass driver for sending objects to outer space Begin the space colonizing age slowly and start with the moon and acquire any resources they need there to make Plants (Giant space colonies ^_^) Put it on one of the Lagrangian points, to allow human habitation in space. The interior of each space colony usually replicates the surface of the Earth and the colony simulates gravity by rotating. Enter CE Era (Cosmic)
|
|
|
Over 500 shares just dumped on Havelock! Holy cow, who do you think did that? Insider information or just an early adopter cashing out some of his stash? Maybe someone is willing to buy some AMHash??? just some people leaving the boat. At this point its more along the lines of Well I'm not getting any return on this asset for X months May as well just come back later
|
|
|
If it was a pump and dump Someone had to create the exchange and the merchants and all the work to get people to use it In other words it was one heck of an elaborate scheme in order to make his payday (What differentiates that from working and building a company from scratch ^_^)
|
|
|
When we need law enforcers to well monitor the law enforcement What is that called? (the military or the government)
|
|
|
This one probally is a more condensed version of it although I will need to look at this stuff as well. Andreas M. Antonopoulos educates Senate of Canada about Bitcoin (Oct 8, ENG) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUNGFZDO8mMIf its good enough for the Canadian Senate it should be educational for everyone else (Imagine a bunch of older age people and explaining Bitcoin to them and getting your points across well) ^_^
|
|
|
They have recently changed their chart to miss out the rise to $435 today. The highest price it now shows for today is about $357. It must have been a glitch in their charting software.
Yep it was sometimes a site gets a weird loading error and the price spikes for no reason Then again if only it were so easy to cause bull rallies
|
|
|
|