Not surprised, anything that has perceived value is the target of those who wish to steal. In a underhanded way, its a compliment to what Gyft has built around Bitcoin.

Most likely because in the beginning, the very idea of a major bank caring enough to track Bitcoin transactions would have been laughed off this forum back in the early days. Now, we have so much interest (and duplication of effort through various 'blockchain' efforts), that it seems every major financial institution has their finger in the Bitcoin pie.

The next phase will be after they realize they actually NEED exo-hashing rates for security, instead of their poorly-secured private hashing networks. I think that particular bell will ring a year or so after they've finished wasting a lot of money on making their own mining networks.

Good riddance. They were never a productive force, and frankly, never elected to be leaders of anything.

Blowing all of their cash with nothing to show for it except some overtures at snuggling up with federal agencies should tell you all you need to know.

Post needs proper date formatting to be in the news section.

Thanks...

Infographic missing "Sidechains - This development will obviate the need for any third-party alt tokens."

I'd look into converting over prior to this happening, if you value your current stake.

Please add a date to fit in with the news section formatting.

Thanks...

Also, its becoming increasingly clear that Craig Wright is a scammer, so this article about him "maybe" being satoshi is ridiculous.

Greg Maxwell has already shown that this guy is using a backdated PGP key, and we haven't seen any messages signed by any of the addresses that satoshi used - so its probably a big hoax. One of the reasons someone might go through this is to use the 1 million Bitcoins as collateral to procure funds from private investors. Like the classic "pigeon drop" scam, leveraging that he "owns" this pile so he can get large sums from gullible people.

Otherwise, none of this makes sense. There is no advantage for the inventor of Bitcoin to be a public person, he already controls a significant amount of money. Privacy would be the first concern, so people don't start picking through his personal life and start to attach wild speculative theories based on his history. Let the project speak for itself, not the person behind it. There's no way in hell the real satoshi would "cave in" and seek the spotlight, in my opinion. Especially since he took great pains to conceal himself in the first place.

Until we see a message signed by the private key that holds the alleged 1million Bitcoins, all of this is easily faked "evidence".

But that never stops the mouth-breathing press from claiming they "found" satoshi again. You'd think they would have learned from the Newsweek debacle.

Gavin's "arguement" is based on consensus not being "predictable".

Uh, what?

A dynamic environment like fees/blocksize was never meant to be static and predictable. If he wants some over-arching master plan of order, he's better off doing something else than working on Bitcoin. Honestly, I don't know where his head is at times...

Prediction: Banks and Financial Institutions re-inventing the wheel will eventually wake up and use the global hashpower of the Bitcoin network. But not until they've spent a LOT of money spinning their wheels. That's fine, I prefer them not to wake up to the reality until after the next halving, when price will start soaring (if it hasn't already).

The funny thing is, by having a "not invented here" mindset, they are throwing out the most important part, the nearly exo-hashing securing part of the system. Besides, their settlement coin requires another party for trust, which turns their alt-coin into another Ripple-esque centralized nightmare. Should be amusing when they realize that.

Litecoin's only utility is being a potential way to "wash" trades into less-traceable Bitcoin transactions.

The only reason they get any attention at all is because they were one of the first alts, hoovered in a bunch of hopeful investors, and subsequently are exploring the basement for value.
Its amusing that their original intent was to "resist" ASIC developments in hashing, but then capitulated. With mis-steps like that, you have to wonder why tweaking the default settings,
such as decreasing confirm times, was really necessary - in fact, it created more problems to solve than it was worth.

I've seen their promo video, and it smacks of that new-startup-desperate-for-funding-smell that comes with the territory. Also, they use a product from bareconductive for their stuff, which makes me want to ask - did they license this from the company? How about long-term effects of this stuff on the skin? It seems the primary use-case for the conductive paint is non-biological surfaces. I just don't see the real business case for their product, it seems too fragile and clunky to be of any real utility.

Just be cautious about this one...

Best quote:


Counters the "its too volatile" argument I hear all the time. Its not much different than other FX traded currencies.

Needs proper date formatting, please add...

Thanks...

Needs proper date formatting, please add.

Thanks..

When Circle first appeared, I did some research.

The same bastards that started Circle were in the lucrative business of school loans, and providing credit to students so they could dig a nice deep hole and get charged interest on top. Not exactly highway robbery, but still dodgy enough that I didn't even bother trying to open an account with them.

The fact that these people are "pivoting towards the money" isn't surprising, they are geared to do so, its the traditional way a company gets steered by profits instead of vision.

They'll lament the fact later, but if they want to commit financial suicide by snuggling up to the existing flawed system, more power to them. They'll be fine examples for those who will come after to pick their bones clean.

Post doesn't have proper date formatting for the news section.

Please fix.

Thanks...

Its already happening in Sweden, soon to debut in other economies where negative rates are the only alternative to paying down national debt, which will be delayed long enough to destabilize entire economies.

The ONLY reason a banking system would insist on abolishing cash is so they could eventually implement negative interest rates.

With negative rates, you pay the banks to hold your money. If there's no cash, then you don't have an exit from the system to preserve your asset value. This is the true end-game, and has nothing to do with customer convenience or saving anyone time. Its all about increasing their control over you.

Topic needs proper date formatting to be in the news section. Please correct.

Thanks...