For some other moderators, signed messages from altcoin addresses can be used as proof of ownership if you get in unexpeted trouble that needs to freeze the account, so you can un-lock it. As far as forum-specific issues go, it would be far better to assume that only signed BTC addresses are accepted. There's no need to roll the dice on signed altcoin messages as there will always be a chance that they won't be honored. This is a Bitcoin forum after all. |
|
|
|
I do not think ICO's are ever going to come to an end, as always new coins will still be pumped into the market,but at the condition of the present market, the number would be considerably reduced and less ICO's would be created...
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what OP Means by ICO days being over lol. They're over in a sense that the vast majority won't be looking into them as simple earning opportunities anymore. This is good though, because a development like this would saturate the ICO Market with more legitimate projects. There will always be shitty ICOs, but their general reputation would take a turn for the better. |
|
|
|
On a positive note, as the price of BTC collapses and all our speculators get burnt and become destitute, in time BTC will return to its humble beginning, where its just mined, and used for transferring wealth. Free money transfer for the little-people, unmolested by Governments ( Here is why we need real security & privacy in BTC ).
As much as that would be ideal for the ideological believers, I don't think this will happen anytime soon. The crash seems to have made people forget that Bitcoin has been in worse situations and has come out blazing. It's only a matter of time before it recovers, and even eclipses its ATH. For me I think its manipulated by greedy investors and traders, Others are using bots to pump and dump any altcoins they want. It should be also easy if you have big funds in BTC, But anyways BTC still has a high and reasonable price right now?
This fits the narrative of insitutional investors wanting to get in the market, but without any proof, it's just conjecture. |
|
|
|
Well that sucks. A good point was raised within the article though: Ramvi added that "more miners in the Bitcoin network does not make it faster or scale better. The only function of more miners is securing the network further,” arguing that the BTC network has been “extremely secure” for “over a year,” removing the need to incentivize more miners.
But yeah, even if their overall hashrate isn't too significant in the big picture, this still hurts because mining already suffers from a distribution issue. One fewer viable country to mine in. |
|
|
|
How much BTC and BCH did Craig Wright hold?
Since Craig claims to be Satoshi, 1 million of each? Lmfao. But yeah, regardless of the truth of that statement, that figure is probably close to reality: In the filing, Kleiman's brother includes what he says is email traffic between himself and Wright in which the entrepreneur indicates he may have been holding 300,000 of Kleiman's bitcoins.
Dave "mentioned that you had 1 million bitcoins in the trust and since you said he has 300,000 as his part,'' the computer expert's brother wrote. "I was figuring the other 700,000 is yours," he added in the email. "Is that correct?"
"Around that," Wright wrote back. "Minus what was needed for the company's use." He could be burning through these for this drama. |
|
|
|
the "hash war" is between BCash and BCash-SV and bitcoin has nothing to do with any of them in this war although the consequences of this war is affecting bitcoin. and it is not just Ver, it is Wright too and they both are fighting over control and money.
Isn't it caught in the crossfire because BTC hashrate is being used to support ABC? Genuinely curious as I haven't caught up with the drama. We shouldn't be blaming anyone though. If one person can affect things this much (of which I'm not convinced), then we have bigger problems. Either way, most of this drama seems like it'll blow over quite soon. These miners can't keep ignoring the more profitable chain forever. |
|
|
|
That's nothing but a shared ledger. Centralized DB works better in a permissioned environment like this. Companies like IBM are using 'Blockchain' merely as a buzzword.v=mRQs9Y6CUSU Aren't they basically selling it as a service so it could be as decentralized as the client wants? Your source for the most complete decentralized blockchain experience available
Either way, yeah, current applications seem shaky. Barring a breakthrough, blockchains will always be extremely specialized with very specific applications. I guess we'll see. |
|
|
|
Was not the EtherDelta founder arrested very recently?
He wasn't arrested, he was fined. There is no court verdict yet as far as I know. He simply settled for now. But man these airdrop scams are getting out of hand. This is why the ICO market is such a shithole. Thanks for the heads up, OP. |
|
|
|
|
Wait, who's panicking? The usual clickbaity articles all over the internet? Lol. The entire market is in the red, so it's not like it's solely Bitcoin's problem. Everything will bounce back like they always do. It's currently speculated that the hashrate slide caused this, and if it's true, then it's completely a non-issue; it was from a knee-jerk reaction from Chinese miners.
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't think a significant hashrate drop could affect the market this much. I always thought it'd be a non-issue because miners have already begun working on their operations distribution. Either way, I very much doubt this will have a lasting effect -- it's very much a short-term problem.
And before anti-China sentiments come in, the crackdown was apparently targeted towards miners that were using state-sponsored electricity. This is a logical move.
|
|
|
|
|
Who really says that Bitcoin was made for money laundering anyway? I mean, I guess it can make it easier, but it also potentially makes it easier for authorities to track you down. Whoever truly believes this statement is either ignorant or biased. I'm not sure where to place banks that say this, but they're certainly hyprocrites lmao.
|
|
|
|
That's what Voorhees is overlooking -- there's no guarantee if/when the US Dollar collapses that Bitcoin will be an established, trusted asset yet. Whether Bitcoin could serve as the "escape route" really depends on how far along we are with adoption and legitimacy.
That's true. I certainly don't think it's going to happen within today to 2020, which is apparently when they think it'll happen: If a financial crisis is to occur by the end of 2020 as predicted by many economists in the US primarily due to the overly high-interest rate set forth by the Federal Reserve, then the US dollar could drop substantially in value and open up investors to stores of value such as gold and cryptocurrencies whose value is not dependent of the global economy. We'll see though I suppose. Maybe some unexpected development can fast track adoption. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is just another technology where things are done more efficiently and much faster than the traditional options available and the younger generation are drawn to these technologies, like a moth to a flame.
Is this necessarily true though? I'd say credit cards are at least just as efficient and just as fast. Sure, the underlying technology and procedures aren't as pretty, but those don't matter too much for the end user. While I believe that Bitcoin can be a very tempting alternative, I think it should be sold on the fact that it's decentralized and that it ignores borders. I definitely believe it should be applied everywhere it can be though lol. |
|
|
|
I have observed and seen the lamentation of most newbies who have being ban from the forum due to uncompliance to strictly adhered rules on the forum.
Most only really get banned for plagiarism though, and not doing that should be common decency. Everyone is taught at school not to plagiarize; why some people think it's fine on other platforms, including this forum, is beyond me. There's not much we can do to help them if they go down this route because they shouldn't be doing it in the first place, whether here or not. There's also the fact that it's in the rules, which they should read. |
|
|
|
Just to add: 1) The question is do i have to use one address per transaction cause?
Using more than one address in one transaction can let people know that both adresses belong to the same wallet. This isn't that big of an issue, but if you don't want your addresses linked, you can avoid it by only spending from one address at a time. 3) Can the address be use more than one time?
It's considered good practice to only use each address once: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Address_reuse |
|
|
|
|
I honestly don't think such a scenario would be that big of a boon for crypto. We've already seen it in the small scale (Venezuela, Turkey, etc.) and crypto hasn't been a very popular choice for diversification. A USD devaluation would affect everyone's economies, and it's very likely that there will be no escaping it.
I could easily be wrong, but I'd rather not find out. The growing debt truly is concerning though. It's going to be interesting to see how they try to work around it.
|
|
|
|
Low volatility doesn't mean stable. Bitcoin has experienced periods of low volatility many times, however this doesn't mean bitcoin is stable, not even close. We all know it doesn't take much for bitcoin to explode, either up or down. That's absolutely still in the cards, I mean everyone is waiting for the next bull run and some people are waiting for a big crash.
It's like saying, this bomb is stable because it hasn't exploded yet.
I don't think people really mean it in that way. I think it started when Tether lost hold of its peg while Bitcoin was retaining value well. Then this added to the hype: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-02/s-p-500-s-wild-ride-makes-u-s-stocks-more-volatile-than-bitcoinPeople then just started saying that Bitcoin was the new stablecoin lol. But yeah, what they usually mean is low volatility. I'm pretty sure no one expects this trend to stick. It's a minor semantics issue. |
|
|
|
When Bitcoin and other crypto-currencies first came out, everyone were saying that it was for the people to get their financial freedom. Now, it seems like it's being taken over by big financial institutions. Should we be worried?
There seem to be a lot of people who are confused with the concept of financial freedom. This is what financial freedom/independence means: Financial independence is a state in which an individual or household has sufficient wealth to live on without having to depend on income from some form of employment. Bitcoin obviously doesn't provide that unless it can go on an eternal bull run. The term you're looking for is financial inclusion: Financial inclusion is where individuals and businesses have access to useful and affordable financial products and services that meet their needs that are delivered in a responsible and sustainable way. Financial inclusion is defined as the availability and equality of opportunities to access financial services. Either way, Bitcoin is just money. People have gone on to associate itself with freedom, etc., but the truth is that whoever holds it is irrelevant. It functions the same way all the same. |
|
|
|
-snip-
Is there an exchange that is truly decentralized? I'm looking for something like that actually. Almost every dexes that I know is running on a centralized web server and maintained by one person or group. Would be nice if there's an app where you can trade directly, just like torrent. The closest thing to that that I know of is Bisq. It's a lot like torrents, in that you have to download a client and it uses a peer-to-peer network. The drawback is that it's not as convenient as other options. There might be other contenders, but I don't really follow them. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
