By trying to define the correct denomination artificially, Adam Back and others not only go against the market but also against the very principles of bitcoin.
Sure. But thankfully they aren't really enforcing anything despite their "authority"; but they're just merely voicing out their opinions, just like what every single one of us are doing in this very thread. |
|
|
|
|
I get it if they needed the money faster, because it's safe to assume that there are a lot of people here that are in not-so-good situations. But on the other hand, a lot of them would have a lot better opportunities if they actually decided to spend some time with research and actually learn. A lot of them have been here for years and years but still solely stick without bounties.
One thing's for sure though, it's pretty evident that a lot of them really don't give a crap about bitcoin and cryptocurrencies and there's nothing we can do about that.
EDIT: typo
|
|
|
|
I know Litecoin back in the day folks use to say that Litecoin would be more or less pegged to Bitcoin and act like Silver (LTC) to Bitcoin's (BTC) gold.
Man, I'd really like that to go back to being so. I have a 'bit' of Litecoin and 1/10th would be just dandy. But that was the last serious talk of this
I honestly think that litecoin's " silver to bitcoin's gold" is one of the worst taglines I've seen that I'm really ashamed of myself for being convinced by it when I was first starting out lol. Litecoin's totally unnecessary besides to being a sort of Bitcoin testnet. |
|
|
|
Is it simply because of how default fees are set in wallets, by exchanges, or by services? If so, why do professional developers miscalculate the fee so poorly?
It's pretty much this. I always check out how congested the mempool is before deciding on a fee. As for the developers miscalculating the fees, I think it's mostly the case that they intentionally significantly increase the fees for UX purposes. Because the last thing they want is people complaining(and blaming the wallet specifically) why their transaction isn't confirmed yet even if the wallet indicated that the tx would be confirmed in an hour or so. Pretty much to prevent negative feedback on Google Play or on Apple App Store lol. |
|
|
|
It is all still considered to be gold, an ounce of gold or a gram of gold and anyone who gets confused can relate it to actual measurement metrics. This is quite different from using made up fractional equivalents which could be quite confusing for an average user especially when there are too much of them.
We could also say that the 'cents' denomination of money is also a "made up" fractional equivalent right? But yet it's heavily used. I think as long as a certain smaller denomination is adopted early on(I think right now is still really early), it will end up fine in the end. But yea, deciding on a consensus is going to be a problem. |
|
|
|
You know a review is totally fake when you see overly-dramatic reviews as this one lol:  Anyway, do the community a favor and report the app. |
|
|
|
It could be that he is just having a very hard time. From my own experience, sometimes shit happens, and when it does, it is just so hard.
It is very hard, especially when every opportunity you have to try to be back on your feet, is taken away.
No matter how hard his/her situation is, it still doesn't change the fact that asu defaulted the loan. If asu was in a really bad situation and at the same time if we're going to take the moral and ethical approach, the attempt would be to at least try to negotiate with DireWolfM14 for a reduction or complete removal of the interest(probably with some proof), and a delayed deadline. But nope. Also taking note that we don't even know if asu is actually in a tough situation. Asu may(or may not) just be a long-term scammer. |
|
|
|
Looks like target of your post is a programmer with years of experience that for some reason don't know how to earn few pennies. So i guess ... no one?
In OP's defense, only the first point actually requires programming knowledge; and even with that, you don't even need literally years of knowledge to start a decent site. In today's day and age, you can run a blog or an online business with zero programming experience. I know this because I myself started both with knowing literally nothing about programming. |
|
|
|
All and none.
No single unit should be enforced, both wallets and merchants must always have the option to easily convert between different units. For example when you want to purchase something worth $10 the merchant UI must show you the amount in bitcoin using the unit if your choice. For example you select bitcoin then it shows 0.00052500, you select satoshi it shows 52500 and so on. Same with your wallet.
100% agree. But the conversation is mostly with deciding what the default denomination would be(e.g. on Coinbase, on CoinMarketCap, etc) instead of the default BTC that we’re currently using; not necessarily the one and only denomination that should be used. |
|
|
|
There will always be a cheaper shitcoin, even if we will go down to sats. We should not lower standards for someone who will sooner or later get rid of the money on the unsuccessful investments.
Sure. But is choosing a lower denomination really "lowering the standards"? I'm pretty sure pricing gold in grams instead of whole bars isn't really a bad thing. Also, unit bias is just one thing. Another advantage would be that it's more natural to vocally say "1000 bits" or "100k sats" than saying "zero point zero zero one(0.001) bitcoin". |
|
|
|
About the issue of seeing bitcoin expensive. Normally, I can buy as low as $10 worth of bitcoin, I can still calculated it in any of the three representations but I prefer using bitcoin because I am more used to it.
Of course. But the problem is for the newbies who get affected by the so called "unit bias", whereas they're mostly going to be more lured into altcoins because they're "cheaper". I know they should be doing their due diligence, but still. |
|
|
|
It's been quite a hot topic on crypto Twitter lately. With as far as I understand, for bitcoin to be seen as less "expensive" as it is, and to prevent people from being tricked and deceived into these so called "cheaper" coins like Ripplecoin, Litecoin, etc. Also, unit bias is just one thing. Another advantage would be that it's more natural to vocally say "1000 bits" or "100k sats" than saying "zero point zero zero one(0.001) bitcoin".
Regardless what your opinion is on this matter, I think it's a great topic for the forum. Feel free to express your opinions. Which side are you on, and why?     Adam Back's reasoning(Tweet source: https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/1335354258858905604): #bitcoin bits > sats.
Time for a bits reboot, IMO.
Sats are confusing, afaict sats were designed by Satoshi to be bitcents under bits.
1million is much easier than 100mil base.
Even bitcoin-qt (core) had bits for years.
You still have sats, just bits and bitcents (aka sats), like dollars and cents.
Sets a nice parity target at $1mil per BTC where $1=1bit and 1bitcent=1sat=1cent.
Reinforces point that we're early at $0.02/bit 50x to go for $ parity
Being early makes fluctuation feel minor, reduce media panic with 0.0195 to 0.0185 moves in days. "Price steady at $0.02/bit"
Apparently early bitcoin had only BTC and old bitcents. 2.1billion old bitcents was 21mil btc. Story I heard from early developers, was @halfin persuaded Satoshi it wasn't enough for world population, and so Satoshi added 1million divisions, moving the new bitcent to 1/100th bit,
A bit being 1millionth part of a bitcoin. Where 1bit=100bitcents, like 3.45 bits = 3bits and 45 bitcents. Later community honorifically dubbed the bitcent the satoshi or sat for short. But afaict it was intended to be 2digit decimal bitcent after the smallest base unit bit.
There is something poetic about a bitcoin being made of bits. And the atom, and unit of account of digital commodity money being a "bit" but having decimals under it for bitcents (or sats) helps give accurate / unfounded pricing.
Also a bitcoin is too expensive, but sats are too many, sound cheap and confusing hard to figure out what you bought. Bits fixed that while still not being expensive even at $1mil btc 1bit=$1, and today 1bit=$0.02, also makes it easy to track $/bit parity, 50x to go vs with sats.
"You can buy a fraction of a bitcoin" hasn't worked, universal newcomer confusion, can't afford to buy one, hard to imagine using units that expensive, even to developers (unfamiliar with bitcoin). Too expensive, as a bitcoin may become more than lifetime earnings for most people
Some conversations on Twitter you might be interested in: Note: will be self-moderating this topic to somewhat prevent unhelpful replies. |
|
|
|
If you're smart enough to use a computer, you're probably smart enough to learn how to have self custody over your funds and properly secure them: https://NotYourKeys.orgBut not all people are willing to learn to secure their funds so don't expect that if they know how to use a computer, they are already knowledgeable about securing their assets. OP asked a question concerning the security of his/her coins, and I gave a resource on how to do it. Would be quite foolish for OP to ask for opinions but not be willing to learn, right? |
|
|
|
I got confused. I thought by living on Bitcoin alone you meant that the family has only Bitcoin as their currency for four years, that they buy all their stuff using Bitcoin alone. I guess by living on Bitcoin alone you actually meant the family is living off from their Bitcoin income alone for four years.
Take note that "living on bitcoin alone" probably doesn't necessarily mean that you need to pay for everything with bitcoin. I have no doubt that there were definitely a lot of instances where the family needed to sell a bit of bitcoin for fiat just to be able to pay for stuff. But regardless, even if they needed to sell some bitcoin, it should still be considered as "using bitcoin" because they're pretty much using bitcoin as their main savings currency. It shouldn't be no different than converting USD to JPY when going to Japan. One avid Bitcoiner, Max Hillebrand, has been "living on bitcoin" for a while now and he admitted that he needed to sell some bitcoin from time to time to pay for stuff. If you're interested, here's a podcast episode with him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TY4efTaFCt8With that said, the family took a huge risk, but it paid off. Definitely not something I would personally do but congratulations to them. |
|
|
|
I don't think there is any pre-defined goal for Bitcoin,
Exactly. Because who's going to decide on what the definite goal is? Remember those altcoin projects that has pre-defined goals and specific roadmaps? There's a reason why Bitcoin doesn't have one— because Bitcoin doesn't have a centralized team that's making decisions for the project. |
|
|
|
Definitely not everyone succeeds in the first few tries. If you've failed so far, go try again because the longer you wait, the harder it gets to reach one whole bitcoin as the price rises long-term.
I am now trying to find multiple ways to accumulate bitcoin. Trading is a difficult task for me and I wouldn't like losing my precious bitcoins in an attempt to gain more. Just a quick reminder that you don't necessarily need to straight-off receive bitcoin. You could simply start a typical brick and mortar/online business and simply use the fiat earnings to buy bitcoin. You'd end up with the same goal in the end anyway: more bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Seems to be an unplanned downtime due to the lack of information on their Twitter account[1]. Got 2 downtime complaints on their latest tweet aswell. I suggest waiting this out for a bit first, and hopefully you didn't have that much money on their platform.
[1] https://twitter.com/gate_io |
|
|
|
I have tried to acquire as much bitcoin(Satoshis actually, never accumulated a whole bitcoin  ) as I can and then traded it to increase my portfolio. Definitely not everyone succeeds in the first few tries. If you've failed so far, go try again because the longer you wait, the harder it gets to reach one whole bitcoin as the price rises long-term. |
|
|
|
I only found they have a tool to verify bitcoin message. Should I use their tool to verify bitcoin message? Are they set up any traps on their site and with that tool? You lose nothing, probably other than privacy. Electrum[1] also has a verify message feature though, you might want to use that instead if you're paranoid.
[1] https://electrum.org/ |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
