meinst du das liegt an Kraken?
Keine Ahnung, habe vor 2-3 Monaten mal auf Bitcoincharts geschaut, da war das gehandelte Volumen in 24h noch im 5 Stelligen bereich und wenn ich heute schaue sind wir gerade bei 3.000 BTC in 24h. Ist etwas ruhiger geworden auf Kraken, zumindest meine Vermutung. I wundere mich auch, ob da vllt. gerade ein paar Leute gestohlene BTC auf verschiedenen Exchanges dumpen. Auf Kraken gibt es in letzter Zeit einmal am Tag einen ziemlichen Volumnes Anstieg + Preisverfall. Hätte ich gestohlene BTC, die ich loswerden möchte, würde ich es wohl auch so machen: Dumpen - Warten bis sich der Preis erholt - Dumpen - ... Fragen an Yunus: Schaut ihr euch bei Kraken, suspekte Verhaltensweisen an(bspw. versuchen die BTC zurückzuverfolgen, ob sie aus irgendwelchen bekannte Adressen kommen) oder würdet ihr so etwas nur machen, wenn sie ein Bestohlener bei euch meldet? |
|
|
|
|
I am not sure, what I would do, but I would definitely not exchange for fiat.
If it seems like a bubble, I might try to sell some BTC, just to buy in again when the price drops, but I am not sure, if I really should take that risk, since I am not an expert on reading the market.
My vision is, that I will be able to buy stuff with the BTC, I have now.
Everybody who sells his BTC so he can put his fiat into a bank account, didn't get the whole idea behind Bitcoin.
Sure, I would understand, if someone exchanges to fiat, to buy something, since you still can not buy everything with BTC and I might even do that, too.
|
|
|
|
|
I am not finished reading this thread, but I already have one thing to say:
Everybody, who says he deserves it, because he attempted murder is a FUCKING IDIOT.
Attempted murder was not an accusation in this trial, it has no value whatsoever in this trial.
|
|
|
|
lol, so someone made a blog-entry about a Forum post to make it look more legitimate? |
|
|
|
|
Maybe it was just a visual bug.
I have a widget, that shows my paper wallet balance using the blockchain.info-API. One time I looked at it and it was Zero. My heart stopped for a second, but than I looked further into it and my money was still there.
|
|
|
|
for those in bitcoin for the fiat it'll be a great year, for those in bitcoin for initial concepts promise.....bitcoin will be dead to them.
What are the initial concept's promises? I guess he means, anonymity, avoiding taxes, destroying governments, whipping your ass and all the other things, that were never promised by anyone, but are just, what some people want Bitcoin to do. well thats a pretty bad guess, and wrong on every point. the idea of bitcoin was an alternative to the banks controlled fiat, to take the greedy money changes out of the equation, one of the main reasons for decentralisation, whats the point of an alternative to the greedy banks if we ourselves given the same power act the same way?lets not even begin at the whitepapers original mircotransctions point re reason for bitcoin over the banks, something the btc powers to be flipped on ages back  We don't have the power to freeze accounts. We don't have the power to print as many Bitcoin as we want. We don't have the power to reverse a transaction. So, about what power are you talking about? Could you please just cut this use of general terms, that means nothing and tell us, what exactly do you mean? define what u mean by we, ie you're not part of the collective in any of my 'we' replies your power points reply aren't even in the context of my post so i'll reply similarly; "We don't have the power to freeze accounts." can and has been done, one of the reason for an infamous btc fork. "We don't have the power to print as many Bitcoin as we want." can on several different level, and has been done for real before, again hence on of the infamous previous forks. and currently is being done in a kind of way by various exchanges and other third parties through various financial product; you'd reply oh but thats no real bitcoins, but the products is just as real as those found in fiat (and all crypto nutjobs accuse fiat of being printed limitlessly). "We don't have the power to reverse a transaction." again can and has been done before ie again look at a previous infamous bitcoin fork. However in context my whole point about being the greedy bankers is most people now in crypto are in it for the FIAT, not in it to make frictionless money, not in it to give people control over their money for better or for worse, but simply to buy a token and try and sell it to the next sucker for a higher FIAT price. all makes the point of bitcoin redundant. Your only example about how the power was misused, is a bug that was fixed, so forged coins can not be used anymore? So, we should stop fixing bugs and just use the first version of Bitcoin-QT Satoshi released? |
|
|
|
|
Since I so often see the argument about, what is good for the miners:
Is there any statement from the large mining pools about this?
|
|
|
|
Wouldn't it be bad for Bitcoin, when transactions are happening somewhere(an altcoin?) else?
Spammy microtransactions are those with smaller fees aren't they? So more transactions means higher fee. So, it will lead to private people stopping to use Bitcoin, since they can't afford transactions.
Isn't small fees one of the main arguments for Bitcoin?
Tell me, how wouldn't that lead to higher fees?
Obviously we don't share the same vision of the future, maybe that's the problem. Can you explain to me why microtransation MUST occure on the bitcoin chain secured with huge and expensive hashpower? It wouldn't get more expensive because there are more transactions. Finding a block, doesn't have anything to do with how much transactions are there. You dodged my question about the fees growth. |
|
|
|
Updated Daily:
2-4-2015:
Bitcoin : Buy!
Donations: 1FnFPwvbLdDxbq5hjjUFDBaEe1Nn4cDV1W
Please bring back the newbie jail. I second that. Any staff-member, who can tell me, why they are not doing that? |
|
|
|
Nobody said the growth would stop, what has been said is: hitting the blocklimit will not cause big trouble because the first thing that would happen would be microtransactions for tiny amounts of money happen somewhere else. So all your doom preaching and urgency is invalid. Hitting the limit will not render btc unusable - in fact it will clean the chain from spammy microtransactions. Wouldn't it be bad for Bitcoin, when transactions are happening somewhere(an altcoin?) else? Spammy microtransactions are those with smaller fees aren't they? So more transactions means higher fee. So, it will lead to private people stopping to use Bitcoin, since they can't afford transactions. Isn't small fees one of the main arguments for Bitcoin? Tell me, how wouldn't that lead to higher fees? |
|
|
|
Keep memeing bro, the fork won't stunt decentralization as i have said before because by the time the blocks reach 20mb the storage space on the average computer will scale with it.
Cool story, why does the decision have to be made now though? Because it'll be harder to achieve consensus later? That would simply mean the fork wasn't really needed in the first place. If the fork is actually necessary in the future it should follow that at that point consensus will be easier to achieve? This seems to be quite a fair point actually.. If bitcoin couldnt resist/adapt the increasing number of transactoins, then everybody would agree to raise the limit, or else everybody loose. This would even give us extra time to investigate further and plan several possibilities so we get this right  So, you want the foreseeable problem to become a real problem before doing something about it? "That is a future problem, we don't have to care about it now" Do you have any idea how long it takes, before a majority has upgraded to the new code? If there is a change made now, that will take effect on a specific date, let's say 1 year from when the new Version goes public, it will go pretty much seamless. If a Bitcoin Core version goes online with the new code, that is executed immediate, there will be a hard fork immediate. Everybody who doesn't update, is on the old fork, everyone who uses a client, that doesn't update that fast, will stay there for a while, everyone, who doesn't check Bitcoin news regularly will stay on the old fork. I dont know if it is a problem yet. But if it indeed arises, then everybody will know about it since they wont be able to use bitcoin the way they used to.. Hence there shall be no 'resistance'. Plus it gives the devs more time to make everything nice and tidy so it would in the end be implemented quite efficiently and rapidly. That's all im sayin.. You are taking into account, that there will be a time, when you can't use Bitcoin as you are used to do it. I think, that would really hurt Bitcoin. If Bitcoin is successful, this problem will occur. The only other scenario, I see, is that Bitcoin will not be successful and then nobody would care anyways. More success means more transaction, doesn't it? The problem is, we don't know, when it will happen. Think about, when decentralized exchanges get popular and all this offchain-transaction occur on the blockchain. That could happen this year. |
|
|
|
Seriously are we going to start acting like the US media or TMZ with Gavin and try to twist everything into a headline? What he said was no big deal.
This is BitcoinTalk.... Where the majority of users are champions in creating drama out of nothing. The majority on the internet seems to be champions at that. Back in my days, when I started using Forums, it wasn't like that. Damn, I am getting old. |
|
|
|
Keep memeing bro, the fork won't stunt decentralization as i have said before because by the time the blocks reach 20mb the storage space on the average computer will scale with it.
Cool story, why does the decision have to be made now though? Because it'll be harder to achieve consensus later? That would simply mean the fork wasn't really needed in the first place. If the fork is actually necessary in the future it should follow that at that point consensus will be easier to achieve? This seems to be quite a fair point actually.. If bitcoin couldnt resist/adapt the increasing number of transactoins, then everybody would agree to raise the limit, or else everybody loose. This would even give us extra time to investigate further and plan several possibilities so we get this right So, you want the foreseeable problem to become a real problem before doing something about it? "That is a future problem, we don't have to care about it now" Do you have any idea how long it takes, before a majority has upgraded to the new code? If there is a change made now, that will take effect on a specific date, let's say 1 year from when the new Version goes public, it will go pretty much seamless. If a Bitcoin Core version goes online with the new code, that is executed immediate, there will be a hard fork immediate. Everybody who doesn't update, is on the old fork, everyone who uses a client, that doesn't update that fast, will stay there for a while, everyone, who doesn't check Bitcoin news regularly will stay on the old fork. |
|
|
|
That and it's probably a easy place for them all to get to
dude, your comment is ridiculous you are pro hardfork and pro meeting - wtf are you doing in bitcoin? I am pro hardfork because I understand how it works and I never said i was PRO meeting I just said this thread is full of sensationalism (Is it not?) I think people are scared of change but they need to remember this isn't the banking sector, we need to do whats best for the coin and not just fear groups or individuals. The hell do you think this meeting is going to be about anyways? A way to somehow make themselves more money and make a 1% elite evil group or do you think it could possibly be for advancing the coin through more ideas for the blockchain and increasing a positive outlook on bitcoin for the masses? doesn't matter. I think you have an agenda. No need to continue discussion. So, it doesn't matter, what the meeting is about, since you are already against it? |
|
|
|
The good news is that more and more bitcoin friendly merchants are considering paying wages with bitcoin, some of them have done that! There are some startups who are offering payroll service in bitcoin!
if they paid with bitcoin? how when the price falls far? Those are mostly people, who don't live from paycheck to paycheck. |
|
|
|
who decide the change? don't tell me "the community", please 1. it depends on, what client you are using. 2. it depends on the miners. It is theoretical possible, that 99% of all users switch to the new blockchain, but just 10% of the miners, so just 10% of the hash rate, which makes it more vulnerable. But I think, the most realistic scenario is, that there is a new Bitcoin Core Client, all the alternative clients adapt the code, the miners(the pools), too, and nobody(the users) really notices the change. Since, I am using NXT, there was at least one hard fork, and I wouldn't have noticed it, wouldn't have I heard about it at LetTalkBitcoin |
|
|
|
So, I know a lot of people are confused or don't even know what the hell is going on with this proposed bitcoin fork.
My biggest question, is, if the fork is implemented, how will 1 side of the fork be differentiated from the other side? Will all previously mined bitcoins become obsolete so to speak? Will it require a new bitcoin client and bitcoin blockchain? What is the limitation of the current block size that would require a bitcoin fork, and will this be the last time it is changed? (obviously some of these questions cannot be definitively answered, such as last time it will need changed) Will this fork increase the total number of bitcoins to be made?
When the fork is coming and you do not update you will be automatically on the MPcoin chain with the smaller blockchain - and everything remains as it is now for you. When you do update you will go to the Gavincoin chain with max. 1000GB storage use in a year on your system. You can actually do both and have the Bitcoins twice. (once on Gavincoin and once on MPcoin) Different exchanges may support Gavincoin, Mpcoin or both - basically Bitcoin will end right there and the chaos that was promised by Gavin will become a reality. Will it be the last change? No, at least not on Gavincoin. Mpcoin could well remain unchanged and thus be the more integer blockchain. On Gavincoin you'd need to brace yourself to hardfork at least twice a year as they intend to make hardforks a habbit. (next time for sidechains and so on) About having coins twice: I think depending to who you send coin on either of the chain they could broadcast the same transaction on the other chain and thus taking your coins on the other chain. So using Bitcoin becomes totally unsafe. I personally predict Mpcoin will survive (with much smaller cap than is now) and Gavincoin plummet to zero after being pumped. (my personal prediction) In any case it is recommended for noobs to stay away from bitcoin alltogether and use altcoins like Litecoin, Dogecoin and others instead to remain safe - or if you must hold bitcoin for the fork: don't move them afterwards. It will be epic chaos and could sink bitcoin, and i think it will. I lol'ed. Taking coins from the other chain? Sure, I can do that, just let me grab my magic, invisible miner to show you how. |
|
|
|
|
Did you actually read the article?
It's pure speculation that IS is using Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
|
That is such a great idea, please do it
(so we may get rid of some of you speculator scum, after they lost their money)
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
