While I'd love to be pleasantly surprised, it does not appear that right now the bankruptcy proceeding is being administered in the best interests of depositors. Rather, depositors will likely be lumped together with all other "unsecured creditors", and then apportioned some amount of cash from the proceeds of auctioning off the 200,000 bitcoins.
I don't think there's any information in the public domain about that either way. But in any case it seems unlikely that Gox have substantial debts beyond what they owe depositors, so even if depositors were somehow considered to have priority it wouldn't make much difference to the eventual payout. GOX has very few other creditors (may their employees, and possibly a few vendors). Grouping depositors with these other groups would likely have a very small impact on the ultimate payout |
|
|
|
What if you aren't sending from a personal wallet (Bitcoin-QT, etc), rather from an exchange (Cryptsy, mint, etc)? In that situation would it still be possible to trace where it was sent from? Or, since it is the exchange's server sending the transaction, would it be anonymous? Network snooping will show the transaction coming from the exchange. The exchange, of course, knows it was your transaction and they'll have records showing such. The same people who engage in widespread network snooping probably can just ask the exchange to give them those records (or they'll hack into the exchange and just extract the records themselves). That's why I said if you use a web wallet you don't have any privacy. A full peer who is not masking their activity is susceptible to transaction counting. That is, detection of transactions which originated at the peer rather than those being relayed. Or at least that was supposed several years ago. Several years ago most people thought it impractical though I personally always considered it a potential threat. Now (post-Snowden) it seems likely that fine-grained packet are captured, retained, and analyzed. At least for anyone who is tagged for enhanced monitoring, and I think that there is a strong possibility that all Bitcoin users are. A non-compromised https connection to a non-compromised exchange or wallet service (if there is such a thing) would be theoretically more safe. It would require timing analysis to match user activity with transactions (if they even leave the service) and that would be very easily thwarted by introducing some random delays. This assumes that the service is somewhat popular (and thus, active) of course. Go ahead and say the magic words 'tor'. For my part I never trusted it. At least not for highly critical work. It being largely funded by the government to 'help Iranian dissidents' doesn't pass the smell test for me. But to each his own. I was just thinking about saying that you could use tor right before I read your last sentence. At least hear me out on this..... You could write and sign a TX, use blockchain.info over tor to push the transaction while using a public wifi with a lot of people around. Or you could skip using tor and just use the public wifi although it would leak your general location but your identity would probably be hidden |
|
|
|
Many people seem to think the buyer will just dump all the coins at once, resulting in the last ones being sold very cheaply. First of all, we don't even know he/she will want to sell all of them. But if so, he will probably sell a little but everyday to get better rates. I Will buy as many coins as I can afford after the market has reacted to this news.
If the buyer(s) buy the coins hoping to arbitrage between their price (from the FBI) and the price on exchanges they would likely sell right away. if they were hoping to simply buy at a discount and think bitcoin is a good investment then they would likely not sell anytime soon. Sadly all of them or most of them will dump the coins ASAP. I don't know that it would be all of them. There are a number of people/large institutions that wish to invest in bitcoin but may not trust the exchanges. This would be a good opportunity to be able to purchase |
|
|
|
interesting plan. i was sort of wondering what direction they might go in. despite the fact that it's still immensely popular, it seems clear that the current model is dying. i wonder how this will go.
I think allowing Facebook to control your bitcoin would be reckless |
|
|
|
I wonder how many btc each winkelvoss has?
If I remember correctly I think I saw an article that said they were investing millions of dollars in bitcoin |
|
|
|
This is not true.
If everyone had to pay a premium then it would not be a premium it would just be the market price
There is a bid-ask spread (difference between what people are ready to offer for bitcoins, and what people are ready to sell bitcoins for) Add to that transaction costs, if any. Plus when you buy something using your existing bitcoins which you mined/bought at a low price, it may generate a tax liability.  The bid-ask spread on exchanges are generally very low |
|
|
|
Dealing strictly in bitcoin would make it very difficult to sufficiently track a person's income. This is especially true for people who do a lot of "side" work as they could simply provide a different address to send payment to for each payment. A person could easily tumble their coins to hide the fact where they originally came from (a particular employer who could then trace them to the employee).
Currently it seems that, for many bitcoiners, just owning coins is all they want from life. But, in that distant future we are considering, that will be sort of passé: people will presumably want to spend their bitcoins too. Suppose you buy a fancy car with the bitcoins from those "side jobs". The tax detectives will know about the payment, and will link it to you, from the dealer and other sources. They check their databases and discover that the payment did not come from any of the addresses that you declared in your tax forms. What then? Mixing won't help, quite the opposite. The tax office does not need to find out where your extra coins came from; it is you who will have to explain -- and prove -- to them that you paid the tax on that extra income. Ditto for coins from "dirty" jobs -- if the tax guys suspect that your extra coins may be related to illegal activity, they will warn the police. Then it will be you, not the police, who will have to explain -- and prove -- that those coins came from legal activities. Note that the government does not have to catch every single tax evader. They only need to catch and sternly punish enough of them to scare most of the other citizens into voluntary compliance. This would be assuming that using bitcoin would be similar to using "cash" If that were the case what if you were to use the money from your "side" jobs for smaller things like to go out to eat, or to buy furniture (that is priced below reporting threshold), or other luxury type (but not costing thousands of dollars) items |
|
|
|
No since they are not duplication. Even if true have you seen how tiny the coins are, nobody comes close to btc
Alts are really just a waste of money. They do not add anything that bitcoin cannot do.
Thats nonsense since most are faster to process. Some are adding features, perhaps one day btc will add these itself if they are that useful and practical. Faster is good but nothing is altering that btc is the longest most secure mainstream crypto so I dont see how this argument comes close to true. If I had a million to place its the only choice as the market depth elsewhere is not sufficient to make sure Im liquid at any point If by faster to process you mean shorter confirmation time then this is not necessarily a good thing. A lot of alt-coins with short confirmation times have a number of orphans because miners keep propagating blocks at the same time. This makes the coin more vulnerable to a double spend attack. |
|
|
|
Cloud mining is what's called a confidence trick. Apparently many people aren't aware of how that works so here's a wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_conBasically they gain your confidence by giving you regular payouts, if you're lucky it will be close to what you first put in, and then once they have gained your confidence, you will be eager to invest more, which they can then use to pay off new users (some of whom you probably bring them by referrals ) until they reach what they consider to be a nice amount to run off with. The longer they keep the con going the more they can make off with in the end. Almost all of these operations are run by people who will never reveal their identity, won't show pictures or any sort of proof that they have mining equipment, and if you question them a little to look for proof, they will probably just say something to the effect of "well everyone whos already with us is getting paid and happy so if you don't trust us you are free to go elsewhere, we don't really need your business". PBMining is a great example of a well executed and still running longcon (i don't expect it to last 5 years, but if they do good for them) , Markets.cx is a not as long term example because it only lasted a month or so, but it's operators still got away with lots of money without ever having tor prove who they where, or that they had any equipment, they just said "we're cex.io for litecoin" and people hopped right on in thinking they would trade ghs (or mhs i suppose) and get a great deal... nope Chuck Testa. Cex.io is probably legit in the sense that they have hardware. You can even redeem it from them, though i imagine anyone who is willing to pay such a premium has no idea how to actually use the hardware if they got it. So their confidence trick isn't so much about running off with peoples funds, but getting those funds so they can buy more hardware to use for themselves. Which is a pretty honest con, but still a con. If you really wanted to mine without having your own hardware, the best options out there are to rent hashing power directly from intendant miners, who sell them on markets like http://nicehash.com and http://betarigs.com. These services allow you to rent hashing power for hourly, daily, or weekly shifts, So you don't have to wait a year to see if you'll profit. You'll still have to pay what the market price is, but its usually fairly close to what they would be expected to earn back in that time period and you're buying it is more to lessen the risk of the miner whos selling it (because you can earn more or less than they would depending on what pool you use and how lucky it is that day). You won't make a living off it, but you'll probably make a small profit if you have patience and buy when the market rates are lower. I don't call these services "cloud mining" because you actually get control over what pool they mine, and you are usually renting from independent mining equipment owners and smaller farm operations, and that sets them apart from the cloud operators in my book. They are just "rentals" like you could rent a car or a truck, use it for the day and then give it back. If you keep renting cars all day every day its way cheaper to buy a car, but if your just looking to move a couch over the weekend its probably a better idea to go to uhaul instead of a dealership. TLDR: try http://betarigs.com, you can test them out for a day or less and see if you make a profit, and if you don't that money at least goes to an independent miner somewhere and you aren't out a whole bunch of money. This plus the fact that the mining capacity is almost always overpriced when compared to rates you can get buying miners elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Mintpal makes half a milion USD per month, according to their volume and fees.
What about their costs and expenses? |
|
|
|
Ok .. am I the only one who fails completely to see how this is such a big deal?
Please someone educate me.
It isn't, but you can't control mass hysteria (stupidity). It's like the malleability issue, everyone was completely hysteric about it when MtGox reported about it. Transaction malleability is still there but now you hear nobody about it (and it still isn't a big deal), this is just how mass psychology works. In a month from now Ghash will be back to 35-40% and everyone will be happy again, even though there is really no significant difference between a pool owning 51% of the hashrate or 30%. This is true, ghash would likely never attempt a 51% attack. The good news is that it does not matter as bitfury is moving several PH/s of capacity out of ghash Again, it's not the question of would Ghash do it or not... The point is, it's possible and people can get greedy. Plus, agencies and governments. Agreed. Not a concern for now, but it s a long term problem that need to be deal with if bitcoin want to stay. no you are not the only one but there are a few who also think its not a major problem as so far as I know no one has yet lost a coin even on a double spend. however the potential is there to control the block chain by a political or financial organisation and this undermines a core principal of btc that must not be allowed to happen. I believe the majority of bitcoiners are very concerned that there seems no involvement by the core developers to prevent this possibility? so as i posted previously I remain concerned. It is acknowledged to be a weakness of Bitcoin. It would be very difficult to "force" an entity not to commit a 51% attack nor to control a majority of the hashrate |
|
|
|
my advice is to ignore all these people, who are talking flapping their lips,  cause truly successful traders are not telling you anything about it, since the more successful (skilled) traders there are, the harder it gets for all of them due to all the competition. The only time this is not true is if you are friends with that trader before they got rich, and they want to help you out, that is how knowledge is passed on, so you are going to either have to make a friend, or learn on your own, by just diving in lol. *and no you can not be my friend if you have to ask, asking for a friend is like asking to be an admin on a server of a game, if you are asking, you are not admin material, the best admins DON'T WANT TO BE ADMINS, because they will do it right and by doing so, it is a responsibility, a burden, NOT a privilege, or a run at free stuff and power. just my two sat's I would disagree with this post. Competition is good for any market. Someone who is truly good at a trade (no pun intended) is generally willing to help someone who is truly interested in learning their skill |
|
|
|
Yes the value of the coins add very little to today's profits in terms of GAAP accounting, but merged mining does not cost anything to do.
Actually it does. A new block header and template needs to be sent to all clients every time the merged coins have a new block on their network. If this results in even 0.1% more stale shares on your miner, then you've lost money compared to just mining BTC+NMC. If it results in 1% more stales, then you've lost money compared to just mining BTC alone. This. You can circumvent it slightly by not sending out new work for merge-mined chains when those blocks update. However, there is still overhead from running extra coins that will impact pool performance. Another coin daemon means more network communication, very marginally slowing things down. Another coin daemon means more hard drive access and CPU time when a block is found on the other coin. The bottleneck for most pool servers is in the coin daemon, when it is processing new blocks. Even on SSDs and fast processors, it is anywhere from 50-200ms worth of time for bitcoind to return a block template. This would take even longer if another daemon is processing a new block (which would happen if the most recent bitcoin block was also a merge mined block for that coin!), increasing the time it takes for the pool to move to the next block. There is not a single coin aside from Namecoin that actually merits the performance hit of merged mining. It's a small, virtually immeasurable amount of delay added, but the other merge mine coins are so worthless that it's not worth risking losing time on a BTC block. Is this on the pool server side or the miner side? If it is on the pool server side, would additional infrastructure (more servers, cloud computing instances) prevent any negative performance by the miners? Granted this additional infrastructure would mean added costs to the pool (and added costs to the miners in terms of less features and/or higher pool fees) but people tend to not think about these costs. If what you are saying is that it will take 200ms extra time to start a new block template by the miners then it would mean that there would be a 1 in 3000 chance that this delay would cause you to "miss out" on finding a block. This is based on the fact that there is a 1 in 600 chance that a block will be found every second and there are 1,000ms in one second. So as long as the added benefit of the merged mining is at least 0.03% that of mining BTC alone then you would end up on top. With a 50ms delay it would be 0.0083%. Is this correct, or I am misinterpreting something? Please be patient with me as I do not know a lot about mining at that intimate level of detail |
|
|
|
They follow the money and see what he did with it. If he'd mixed it at SR for example, that would be good because it could've been lost. They say he dissipated the assets. They say, you are in contempt until you come up with $X. In short: She whores around. She gets to get f&$@ed by some other guy,, he gets to get f$&@ed all over again by her in court. in all seriousness -
how could they?
i like his plan.
What if he just said "I developed a gaming addiction and lost it all on a cryptocurrency gambling website" Which in reality is completely possible and unproveable in the courts eyes seeing as none of the crypto gambling sites are registered with a government authority. Does this mean any married man who loses significant portion of his assets could go to jail for life for not being able to prove the means of which he lost it? Would be surprised if this was the case TBH. If you cannot prove it and the judge is doubtful it will not stand in court The rules of evidence are very strange in divorce court. The person with the economic disadvantage almost always has an advantage in court |
|
|
|
That's what the term means. It's an unavoidable monopoly. You can always go to a socialist country instead if you can get a passport in time before you die.
Monopoly is not unavoidable. If this is the case, counties and dynasty will last forever rather than fade into history and being replaced by a better managed country/dynasty. Very true. Many monopolies only last a few normal human lifetimes. I'm glad your immortality is working out for you. Monopolies, like empires will fall when they get too cocky |
|
|
|
As the public discovers that the current system is unsustainable (if they do) you will hear about paying back or at least tapering (expanding the money+debt supply less than that other political fraction would have done, had they won the election).
But both is out of the question really. It is not possible to taper (reducing the rate of expansion), and it is not possible to increase the interest rate.
Look for tapering talk, and at the same time covert debt expansion. Fake companies issuing bonds, loans parked in bad banks. New forms of securities issued. Government guarantees. Implicit government guaranties. Even a political statement like we have to stop global warning increases lending and thus the money+debt supply.
They have already started to taper the rate of QE. The FED had increased interest rate before and will do it again eventually |
|
|
|
people still use apple produts ?
soooo 2013
but yeah, good news for you folks who do use apple and bitcoin in general. did they give a reason and to their change of heart ??
Apple has great products actually, it's just that they are uber expensive. I loved my iPhone when I had one and I've used Macs from other people. The OS is great, it's just the hardware that is way too expensive. I would say that they are expensive but they are worth the added price you pay. In terms of quality they are cheaper. |
|
|
|
Are bitcoin gambling sites illegal in USA?
(sub-question: Does it make a difference where they're hosted, ie. if they're hosted outside USA?)
Lastly, If an online game involving money and payouts requires skill more than luck, is it considered gambling? And is it illegal?
To USA everything that doesnt involve giving the a part of the cake is illegal, or if its not, they will make it illegal. So much about your "freedom" Correct. According to the Boston University Law Review, U.S. regulations pertaining to online gambling are about how much money the government can make or lose and blocking competition. You, the consumer, are oppressed, as you have to pay higher prices (higher vigs and rake) and have less choices, when you have to buy from monopolies and oligopolies. You can get full explanation at http://stockbet.com/#/support/gamblingThis is not necessarily true. If a casio can reach an economy of scale then they can charge less from consumers in the form of lower house take. I'm not sure I understand your point. That's like saying that if Ford can reach an economy of scale, then the car prices will be low for the consumer and the variety and choices of cars will be enough. Therefore, there is no need for more competitive car makers, such as Hyundai, to lower price even more for the consumer, and no need for BMW to provide different types of cars. Is this what you're saying? I am saying that a healthy amount of competition is good. In places that allow gambling there are a good number of casino operators that compete with each-other. Your previous post said that consumers are forced to buy from oligopolies that have a lower house take. My point is that by having a concentrated market a casino market can lower their average expenses and that competition is great enough to pass this along to the consumer. Looking at your analogy, car makers do not primarily compete on price, they compete mainly on quality. The internet has provided serious competition to land-based businesses, such as newspapers, Barnes and Noble, video rentals, entertainment, etc. The government makes tons of money off of land-based casinos, but far less from online operators. According to Boston University Law review, this is why the government tries to block online gambling. The rich usually shapes the laws. Sheldon Adelson, 5th richest American and CEO of Las Vegas Sands, has hired a team of lobbyists to ban online gambling. You might have heard some of his puppets on the media bashing online gambling. The benefit of doing this, is it blocks off competition from his land-based casinos. Do you agree with the government and Adelson? Do you think the consumer is sufficiently served by land-based casinos and don't need additional choices (quality based or not) via the internet? Do you think the government should be allowed to arbitrarily decide which industries have sufficient competition and therefore block competitors from entering? Retailers compete on price. There were already millions of highly competitive retailers, with thousands of areas of highly concentrated retailers. Their prices and margins have always been lower than most industries. Should the government limit the number of competitors allowed to go into retail? Should the government have banned Amazon and eBay? What about lotteries? Are you in favor of monopolies? I think that the reason the government has attempted to limit/ban internet casinos is because it is very hard to identify and stop people who are addicted to gambling. In a land based casino you are watched a tracked fairly closely. If you lose your entire bankroll several times while visiting a casino they may wish to not allow you to gamble there anymore. I am not sure, but in theory casinos could share this kind of data with eachtoher. On the other hand it is much less difficult to hide your identity when you have a gambling problem. A person could easily lose much more then they can afford to lose. I understand that this is essentially protecting you from your self, but it does serve some kind of purpose. |
|
|
|
I have been using http://Cryptotrader.org for a couple of months now, and it is not a scam. But you will have to be realistic. You will not get rich overnight. Don't be fooled by bots that make millions, it's not possible. But bots can protect your money and make some profit but there are always risks involved. All that a bot will do that trades in that fashion is follow a preset of rules that you or someone else give it. Your success will depend on how accurate your rules are at predicting where the price will go before the rules say to take another trade |
|
|
|
Hiya,
I've been using the Satoshi client for a long time now, and since my internet speed and CPUs are horribly slow, well blockchain synchronization takes forever. However, I very much like the coin control feature in the client.
Is there any alternative client where I don't have to download the entire blockchain but there is still coin control features?
Thanks.
The only other wallet service that I am aware of that allows you to control your coins at the level that Bitcoin-QT does is blockchain.info's wallet. You can us custom send to specify which addresses to use for inputs, the change address and the miners fee (custom send) Yes, I am well aware of that possibility. However, I was looking for something similar to the level of control as Bitcoin Core, where you can control the individual inputs. Per-address input selection is just not fine enough for me. I believe there is an option on the blockchain.info website that allows you to push a signed TX to the network without a client. If you were to create and sign a TX with your individual inputs that you want to spend then you could use blockexplorer to keep track of your spent and unspent inputs. I've been using raw TXs to do my transactions for the past while, but it got a tad complicated with so many inputs. I think I'll go away from that path for now because the last time I tried, I sent my output as the fee. #whoops I know of a site (brainwallet.org) that has a slightly less complicated GUI for creating raw TXs, but AFAIK, you can't use inputs from multiple addresses on there, which I nearly always do. My question is, why do you wish to have that much control over your inputs? Any program that gives you this control will have the possibility of making that mistake. With a wallet like multibit this would never happen. Even if you used blockchain.info's custom send, you would have control over where the coins come from. I get small transactions to my Bitcoin addresses pretty regularly and I like the control over my inputs because it lets me consolidate them easily. Pretty stupid reason, but oh well. That is fair enough. I believe that most clients will attempt to group together inputs in the most efficient way possible. Either way it is your money and you can do as you wish with it. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
