|
Sounds like Mike Hearn wants to see some gigabyte blocks, because it's pretty obvious from some simple calculations that 8MB blocks of Bcash doesn't not achieve any notable scalability. So far Bcash community doesn't have a clear roadmap for their own scalability solution - one part thinks that they should use Lightning Network, which is funny because they also preach that it's a bankster's conspiracy, while the other part wants gigabyte blocks. We might see a split in the future were there will be 2 Bcash coins with different roadmaps.
|
|
|
|
Let's suppose that for some reason the supply of potato drastically decreases all around the world. Does that mean that people will pay 10.000 dollars for a potato or give up their cars just to get a potato? Of course not. This is because the utility of consuming a potato - the want-satisfying power of a potato is much smaller than that of a car or of 10.000 dollars worth of goods or services. In other words, from the mere fact that the supply of something is limited it does not follow that the price will soar.
If potatoes suddenly became extremely scarce, their prices would skyrocket because they would become luxury food similar to truffles. Scarsity itself doesn't create value, but it amplifies the value of something that already has some utility.
In comparison to a potato, Bitcoin is not even a physical tangible good that can be used for satisfying human wants or needs, and its only utility is that it functions as a medium of exchange. So, just because Bitcoin supply is limited, that does not mean its price will rise. People will NOT pay enormous amounts of money just to have a medium of exchange function, especially if this function is equally available whether the price of Bitcoin is 1 cent or 7.000 dollars, and if this function can be realized with various alternative cryptos or fiat money.
You're mixing up different things here. If we're talking about medium of exchange, then the costs of using it are a combination of network fees, exchange fees and price fluctuations and in some cases it can already be lower than traditional payment methods. |
|
|
|
|
I think this is more of an excuse to ban Telegram because protestors are using it for communication rather than Telegram actually being a threat to their government because of it's ICO. But like always with any internet bans, they are pretty easy to circumvent via tools like VPN and TOR. The main goal of such restrictions is probably to scare some users by branding some sites and services as "illegal".
|
|
|
|
|
Celebrity endorsement is a really bad trend, it should be obvious for any investor that advices from unrelated celebrities are worth nothing, since they have no experience and knowledge of cryptocurrencies. So, these endorsements are actually huge red flags that signal that an ICO is most likely a scam and should be avoided. In this case a lot of people were predicting that this ICO promoted by Mayweather was a scam, so it shouldn't be surprising that it's founders are now being charged.
|
|
|
|
|
It's funny to see how a meme turns into reality, but imo it's quite unwise to spend Bitcoins on luxury stuff, considering that we are still in early days and there's a potential to go to 100k and higher - some millionaires might rob themselves of their future billionaire status if they spend too much coins now. The other problem is that it rises security risks - bitcoiners are an easy target for criminals because if you force someone to give up their private keys, there's very little chance to get them back. So, Bitcoin millionaires better keep low profile and invest in personal security.
|
|
|
|
I think the big reason for this is the fact that many altcoins and tokens are very shady and the people behind them often engage in market manipulation via pump and dump, so they can afford to pay those fees, since they will still be in profit. This is harmful for honest projects since their developers have much less funds and can't afford listing.
I wonder what the landscape would look like if this wasn't a thing.
Exchanges would try to list coins basing on their popularity, to make sure that they get the most fees. Some coins might be unprofitable to list, because of very low volumes. |
|
|
|
|
This is great news, it's clear now that there's still a lot of space for improvement when it comes to on-chain transaction fees - wallet algorithm's like coin selection and network fee estimation can be improved, services can adopt batching, Schnorr signatures can make some transactions more compact. Eventually on-chain fees will get very expensive, proportionally to Bitcoin's price and adoption, because blockspace is such a limited resource, and it will push users to search for every opportunity to minimize fees.
|
|
|
|
I do not think so, prices are so low and April bitcoin will increase more, continue to fall is difficult, see the upcoming market
Bitcoin had a rally that lasted for almost 2 years, now the tide have turned so it's very unlikely that the new bull run will start anytime soon. This is not a FUD, that's just how markets work. So, it will continue to slowly decline, maybe a lot (to 3-4k), maybe not much (5-6k), but it will take some time, at least a few months but I won't be suprised if it will last longer. But I don't think there's any problems for us hodlers, we can wait for as long as it takes until we reach the moon. |
|
|
|
|
I think we've officially entered the bear market now, and it will probably last for a while, at least a year, maybe a year and a half, and in this scenario I don't see the price going to 20k. It will sit betweet $4,000 and $10,000 until the next big rally will start. But of course anything can happen, no one predicted that it will reach 20k recently, so maybe the bear market will be short, but I think it's unlikely.
|
|
|
|
It's mostly me that says the mining cartel should be broken up with a PoW hardfork (on bitcointalk.org, at least).
I'm going to say it again in this case: if 1 powerful company have protected intellectual property related to significant performance gains for mining chips (i.e. SHA256 ASICs), then that company essentially owns the mining market.
That is terrible news for Bitcoin's security model, as Intel could control the whole mining market and in turn control Bitcoin software development. Bitcoin's market value would be seriously impacted, and unless a similar 35% could be found in an unpatented method (its unclear whether Intel's technique could be used with the overt form of ASIC Boost), a PoW hard fork would be inevitable.
I think this situation is pretty complicated. Bitcoin's mining has been heavily centralized for years, with Bitmain producing almost all hardware and most mining power being concentrated in China (some even say that it's controlled by just a few people). And yet we don't see any blatant attempts to takeover the network via hashpower - most of the recent attacks were social - Bcash and other forks, spam transactions, FUD, sockpuppets, etc. I feel like Bitcoin is already very robust, and potential security gains from hardforks might not be as big as they sound. So, I'd gladly support a PoW change if it was proposed by Bitcoin Core, but I don't think that we'll see it in the near future. |
|
|
|
Hopefully, they will win the lawsuit. Indeed it is unfair to the developers, participants and all the other people involved in ICOs to ban advertisement on such popular platforms as Facebook, Google, Twitter and Yandex. It's a known fact that without promotion no business can survive nowadays, so they are literally trying to kill the ICO business by those restrictions.
I'm not trying to say that ICO scams should not be banned, but banning all the ICO ads is not how it should be done in the free world.
There's no way they will win this lawsuit, they're a small fish compared to those companies, plus governments are pretty suspicious of cryptocurrencies. On top of that, those companies are free to decide what ads they show to their users, I don't see anything illegal in refusing to work with certain customers (ICO's and crypto services). What would really be nice though is if search engines stopped giving ad space for phishing sites that mimic exchanges and wallets, since newbies are easily getting tricked by them. |
|
|
|
Hello,
I had read a few months ago that many people like warren buffet had bad perspective for cryprocurrency. He said that bitcoin will have a bad ending.
Do you think it's proper for him to gave a comment like that?
IMO it's not proper. Even if he was an expert in stockmarket but he was commenting on cryptomarket.
It's like an Electrical Engineer questioning the structural integrity of a building design by a Civil Engineer.
When some celebrity talks about Bitcoin, it's important to examine their arguments as if they were said by any other person, because it's a fallacy to think that if someone is successful and smart, than they are always right. With this in mind, it becomes clear that most Bitcoin opponents are outright wrong in their thnking, like for example Bill Gates who recently said that cryptocurrencies are bad because they are used to buy drugs. If you want to form your own opinion about cryptocurrencies, you should start studying cryptography, math, game theory, programming instead of listening to what other people say. |
|
|
|
|
There are many reasons why fees are going down, like adoption of SegWit and batching, but I think the biggest one is simply the fact that Bitcoin is used less nowdays, because it's main use case for the recent years was speculation, and now that we're in a bear market, trading and transaction volumes went down compared to the peak of the rally. Let's just hope that when the next rally will start, Lightning Network will be widely adopted so the main chain won't get congested to the point were fees are $30 and more.
|
|
|
|
We have to read between the lines. I think there are some factors known to be the underlying reasons why there is such a decision to discourage cryptocurrency mining operations. In fact, this is all business since these mining operators will be paying the power they are using. What should the government do is to raise the tax or fees requirements for such operations and maybe limit the number of possible approved locators. Anyway, am sure there can be other places who are needing this type of business...a place where power is abundant and cheap.
The article explains that it's not because officials in Quebec are anti-Bitcoin but because there's too many miners who want to establish their operations there, and officials are afraid that there's not enough power for everyone. Although it seems like they are not very enthusiastic about mining - maybe they are not sure if it will survive for a long term, because they might think that Bitcoin is a bubble of will be banned. |
|
|
|
Is this geezer being paid by Zcash? He rolls that out every time.
I'm not hugely interested in his opinion on this subject. He has no track record in this area.
The way things are developing I'd say the public aspect proved to be a pretty pragmatic move in terms of keeping the authorities mollified. If Bitcoin had Monero's qualities they would've gone all out to squash its interaction with fiat. I don't think they've had the time to figure out what stuff like XMR really represents.
Let's see what second layers bring in terms of privacy. Most seem to assume everyone's daily business will happen on the raw blockchain when that'll never be possible.
He's most definitely being paid by them, because there's no reason why any privacy advocate would choose Zcash over Monero, since there's so many criticism of Zcash from cryptography experts. And as for Bitcoin, privacy hasn't been a priority yet, but developers are starting giving it more attention, so it's too early to say now that other coins are going to replace Bitcoin in the future. |
|
|
|
|
A lot of people were naively thinking that state-issued cryptocurrency can help countries like Venezuela and Russia circumvent sanctions, but this just shows how silly that idea was. When the West is serious about sanctions, they will make sure to leave no obvious loopholes. If those countries really wanted to circumvent sanctions, they should be using Bitcoin and Monero, but this is only suitable for small amounts - large volumes would be easily spotted by chain analysis.
|
|
|
|
Satoshi allocated 1m BTC for himself. Was this an instamine via an initial superblock after the genesis block? Did he just ninjamine the initial 1m coins? If it was a superblock can someone point me toward the lines in the code base so I can learn how it was setup?
What is checkpoint protection in premine?
Thank you in advance!
First, it's not a fact that Satoshi mined 1 million coins, it's a theory that might or might not be true. Second, there was no "instamine" or premine, he added "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" to prove that he didn't mine any blocks before that date with intention to publish longer chain later. So, whatever he mined rightfully belongs to him, this doesn't violate any rules of the network or it's core principles. |
|
|
|
|
Governments and companies are just looking for scapegoats to show people that they need their protection. When there are real malicious ads, like Russian propaganda that disrupts western politics, they don't do anything because they are just bought by Russia, but cryptocurrencies don't have any rich lobbyists, so they are cracking down on them. There are many examples of shady activity on social medias similar to ICO's and other scams - multi level marketing, ponzi schemes, etc, but no one bothers to fight them.
|
|
|
|
|
It's silly to say that ICO's are gone because there are some successful examples of airdrops. ICO's are popular because they let small investors to participate, you can invest $20 or $500 or $5000 - there are no limits. But with private selling this is not the case, they are usually for big investors. On top of that, so many airdrops are so worthless that they are not worth the time, so most people just don't bother with them - this example of $1000 airdrop is more of exception from the general rule.
|
|
|
|
|
Some very paranoid people do it "just in case", and it's okay to do it as long as you are sure that you are implementing everything 100% correctly, but in reality all crypto systems are getting cracked because of mistakes in their implementations (reusing keys and parameters, weak randomness, etc.). I think people who are worried about security should spend more time on thinking about other potential dangers like armed intruders, kidnapping, malware, housefire, natural hazards and so on, since those things are way more likely to happen than your correctly implemented cryptography getting broken.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
