Bitcoin is NOT mathematically limited to twenty one million bitcoins.
I do not support raising the cap at this time but if we had overwhelming support like we did for Segwit we could raise the limit to any number we could dream up.
I would have no issue changing the code to allow a 1 bitcoin reward for every block forever... to ensure a strong distributed mining community.
I understand this must sound like blasphemy to the majority of the community but it irks me to see such a false statement about bitcoin repeated over and over again in every Bitcoin youtube video out there; there has to be a better way to phase it.
With the same reasoning that someone can fork to implement any changes (and some percentage of community might accept it as Bitcoin) you could argue that Bitcoin is not decentralized, not trustless, not immutable, not irreversible, et cetera, et cetera. This doesn't really proves or means anything, because consensus structures can't be inherently unchangeable. One could argue that all Constitutions are useless, because majority could vote and change them however they like. |
|
|
|
Had been in a dilemma after seeing BTC-E's owner being arrested for a $4 Billion money-laundering fraud which he had been conducting, who knows that from when. First Mt Gox, then Bitfinex then Poloniex and now this, few were hacked and some had their admins only cheating their users.
Do you really think any exchanges are trustworthy anymore?
Bitcoin was created to remove a need for trusted middlemen in transactions, which can be described as "be your own bank" idea. So, when you store your coins on any type of online wallet (exchange, casino, wallet service, etc) you are essentially going against one of the reasons why Bitcoin was created. Everyone should take as a rule to never hold online more coins than they can afford to lose. Better to pay transaction fees each time you want to trade, rather than risk to lose a huge amount of coins. |
|
|
|
One of the best boxers in the world, just revealed his side of the crypto world, in his recent post on instagram , floyd stated that he is going to make millions from his predictions on the stox ICO . Continue reading => https://zycrypto.com/floyd-to-make-millions-ico/ That’s cool though that such renowned people are interested in bitcoins and investing in them great amount. He is absolutely right. After the execution of Segwit, the bitcoins are obviously going to touch the sky and cashing them out at that moment will let him earn millions. My best wishes are with him. Original tweet: https://twitter.com/FloydMayweather/status/8906462312816844801. He didn't say he invested in Bitcoin, he promoted some ICO and hashtagged Bitcoin in his post for some reason 2. Probably it's just a paid promotion 3. There's no proof that he himself actually invested in that ICO 4. The decision to promote that ICO might have been made by his advisors I just want to add that getting investment advice from celebrities is a really bad idea. Especially if they are just paid advertisers. |
|
|
|
Do you know on August 1st, not only bitcoin cash that will be launched but BIP148 as well? It seems segwit2x is just a bait to activate segwit, check at https://coin.dance/blocks where BIP141 gain over 99% miners support. So, segwit2x won't implemented but segwit will be, I just hope it could resolve bitcoin problems and become scale solution to attract more adopters will join into bitcoin community. In that case, bitcoin price should be increase significantly after segwit activated, and I think bitcoin cash is just another way to create speculation to cause panic sell, if bitcoin price fall down again. At least we know to buy bitcoin whenever discount appears. Regarding BCC: https://www.coindesk.com/coindesk-explainer-bitcoin-cash-forking-blockchain/"”If the Segwit2x agreement fails to implement the 2x part, which is not entirely unreasonable, and only ends up being being basically SegWit without the 2x, many miners will likely defect to Bitcoin Cash." - BCC dev Miners feel that 2x fork will get rejected by the market, so they would rather mine big block altcoin with no Segwit (BCC), instead of big block altcoin with segwit (2x fork). It seems segwit2x is just a bait to activate segwit,
correct Incorrect. Segwit2x was created because miners got scared of UASF, and tried to compromise with users by merging Segwit and big blocks, but majority of users will most likely reject 2x fork. Miners have baited themselves. |
|
|
|
The real question is what should be followed to be considered the real BTC? The blockchain with more hashing power or the blockchain thats supported by Core?
More problems incoming after this year.
What chain is the real BTC in entirely subjective, no one can force others to call some chain the real BTC and others as fork, right now it's not a problem because majority of users threat current chain (developed by Core) as Bitcoin, so if some minority of users would fork and try to take Bitcoins name, other users will threat those coins as counterfeit. However, if user support of both chains will be close to equal, some or both sides would have to choose another name for their chain, and this process might get very messy and cause confusion for less experienced users. Luckily, this scenario is not realistic as of now.
There is no consideration what is 'the real BTC'.
There is only one BTC: BTC
Everything else forked from BTC is simply an altcoin.
The chain that we are using now has already been forked many times. It's wrong to say that legacy chain is always BTC, it's entirely up to users to adopt or reject chains. |
|
|
|
Well, we can track BTC-e wallet here: https://www.walletexplorer.com/wallet/BTC-e.com although maybe there are other wallets. As you can see, it wasn't emptied yet, and that would be the first move of anyone who got access to it, because it's possible that there are some other persons out there with access to this wallet (partners of Vinnik, his backup, other trusted persons, etc.). Same goes for BTC-e ETH wallet: https://etherscan.io/address/0x91337a300e0361bddb2e377dd4e88ccb7796663dSo, there's some chance that all the crypto of BTC-e won't get seized and will be lost forever or will get moved to hands of some new people (other than Vinnik), who might or might not return it to the original owners. But it shouldn't be hard for the US government to seize fiat funds, especially in USD. Edit: BTC-e ETH wallet got emptied: https://etherscan.io/tx/0xa7e60cc4b56c81dc148e6b3a025cad949828dfb6b36801e5a6b42a9a94f5e33a |
|
|
|
His last message was regarding Dorian Nakamoto in 2014. Why hasn't he made any comments about the hard forks, segwit, BCC, etc?
I think Satoshi wants to see open-source Bitcoin development by a group of competent people, because it's better for Bitcoin for many reasons. First, anyone can make mistakes, so having development of 40+ billion dollar network on the shoulders of just one person is very risky, also it makes Bitcoin more centralized in eyes of users - so any news regarding Satoshi would influence the price (like it's happening now with Vitalik and ETH). He also wants to stay anonymous, and keeping his public activity would probably endanger his privacy. But it's possible that Satoshi is posting here or on other platforms under new nickname, and we'll probably never know it. |
|
|
|
|
I'll correct option 2 - even if BCC/FIAT market will exist (it already does on ViaBTC), the volumes are going to influence this scenario, and ALT/FIAT markets usually have very low volumes, comparing to ALT/BTC.
So, what most likely to happen is redistribution of BTC from people who decided to invest in BCC to people who decide to dump their airdrop. And since the average price will be quite low (something like 0.01 BTC), the effect of shorting additional BTC (keep in mind that many people can also decide to hodl) will be unnoticeable.
The biggest role of BCC is creating FUD, because when the market is sensitive, it's easier for whales to pump and dump.
|
|
|
|
I think you are wrong about the oxymoron thing. I don't want to create a clone, I'm just asking as a general guide line, we'll take it from there.
The whole point here is, is it possible to create and regulate a digital currency? Can you put a tax into the code or add a tax in the transaction fees to pay for the enforcement of regulations. Can you enforce that all mining pool servers and wallet servers be located in California? If not can a coin be labeled illegal and unacceptable if it was obtained by breaking regulations.
Making a physical currency is illegal in the US but making a digital one isn't.
The digital currency we would make for California would be different than all others in that it would be regulated and based on real world indicators of the value of California to the rest of the world outlined by a yearly guide updated by an advisory council. This would help to curb wild value Swings.
The whole point of blockchain technology is decentralization and immutability, and they come with a price like very high energy consumption in comparison with centralized payment systems, and scalability problems (potentially solvable). Now, think about it, why would you need a decentralized coin if you want to create a new state with it's own sovereign territory and whatever laws you want? Sovereign California government doesn't get any benefits from decentralized Californiacoin (modeled after cryptoccurencies like BTC, LTC or ETH), so it should just create its own centralized digital money like PayPal or Skrill.
The only problem with doing this is that as soon it looks like we are leaving the US the US dollar will plummet in value hurting both us and them so I'm writing an essay on creating a digital currency for California that we could eventually bring the mining to a halt and then give a month grace period for it to settle and then switch it to a printed currency.
The solution is simple - buy Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
You guys might hate capitalism all you like, but remember that capitalism is essentially a free market, and any other system will always be a planned economy. And it's obvious to me that any planned economy system is not compatible with something as free and decentralized as Bitcoin. It removes ability to print more money, seize your funds easily, it's hard to trace and immutable, so there's no way any economically authoritarian system would allow it as legal payment method.
|
|
|
|
|
It's pointless to create a new currency if you are just cloning an existing one. If your currency is not better than other currencies from technical standpoint - i.e. scalability, privacy, additional features, than you will just create inconvenience for users, by making them lose time and money on converting other currencies into your coin. There is more than 800 currencies and most of them aren't used for business transactions, because Bitcoin already works well for that. If we imagine that California will actually secede, most people who use crypto will stick with Bitcoin, and not with some new Californiacoin. And the whole point of national currency is to control national economy, so "national cryptocurrency" is an oxymoron.
|
|
|
|
Believe me, prices will be nothing more than 0.005 BTC in a week or so after release.
Too early to say that. I heard that Bitmain (and its mining wing AntPool) is considering to support BCC. If that happens, then the value of BCC may rise sharply. And if Bitmain decides to support this coin, then at least some of the other miners may rethink their original decision. To clarify, supporting a coin means buying it when the price drops, and yes, it's possible that the people behind it (Jihan and Ver) might try to support it at some point, but they can only do it with a purpose of creating confidence for traders to invest in their coin, they can't support it alone. The sell pressure will be huge, and every time it will try to rise, some BTC holders will send their coins to new wallet, import keys from the old wallet and dump BCC. The only way to create growth for an altcoin is to deliver its promises, work on new features, and be competitive with BTC from technical standpoint. And lets face it, only bigblockers believe that this will happen. |
|
|
|
|
I got pretty similar toy casino for my 10th birthday, and I almost never played it, probably because I was always more focused on saving money instead of saving, but I definitely see how this can influence some kids and help develop gambling addiction later in their life. In my opinion, this game should be at least 13+. And it's very important that parents explain to their children that involves big risks and statistically there's always more chances to lose than to win. Sadly, most parents ignore this issue or don't have enough understanding of the subject.
|
|
|
|
I think exactly opposite wil happen after network split. Bcc will be dumped by bitcoin lovers and they will keep their btc this will certainly pump the price of btc because all the free money people will get from bcc will be used on buying btc back. We can predict price to reach $3k for btc when bcc will be listed for trading.
BCC will be mostly traded against BTC, and not fiat, so there won't be any "free money" that will boost BTC price. What will happen is that BCC will get dumped, and people affected by Bitmains propaganda (notice the swarm of fresh accounts who shill for BCC recently) will lose their Bitcoins from their trades. It's always hard to predict the price of BTC even if you can predict some upcoming events, but I think there's more chances that we will stay on $2700-2800 for some time, or even get to 3k soon, due to avoided messy chain split. |
|
|
|
|
So, is this the reason why some services might refuse to release BCC to BTC owners? Because it would require a lot of effort to do it without jeopardizing BTC addresses, right?
And what about services that have promised to release BCC? Would they become less secure after exporting private keys to BCC, unless they create new wallets and move all funds to them?
|
|
|
|
Since I started bitcoin in 2015 there are already bitcoin gambling sites and today they are still existing. I'm just thinking if gambling is one of the factors in increasing the bitcoin's value.
Every successful Bitcoin business increases Bitcoin value, but the real question is how much? Bitcoin gambling boosts demand for Bitcoin, because people need to buy Bitcoin on exchanges to deposit it to their casino accounts, so how much Bitcoins are bought for gambling? I think it's possible to get some idea about this sum by looking at casino profits and then multiplying it by 1.95 (something close to effective House Edge). It would require a lot of work to find the sum of profit for all casinos, but lets say it's around 100 BTC per month, which transfers to 195 BTC buy support per month. Some part of this sum is later sold by players who won or casino operators and their investors. |
|
|
|
|
This is hardly any news for people who have been using Multibit, because problems started to occur a few months ago, and devs weren't responding at all. People couldn't login to their wallets with correct password, restoring wallet was also glitching, transaction fees weren't calculated properly, etc. But there's plenty of other wallets, and soon it will be possible to easily import wallet seeds from Multibit to Electrum, so this isn't a significant issue.
|
|
|
|
|
OP, all your points from first post can be reduced to one single point - income inequality. But is it really a bad thing? People are not equal in their abilities, and pure capitalism rewards people for their usefulness for others. It's impossible for everyone to be rich, drive Lamborghini and own a yacht, there's not enough resources for that. But under capitalism things actually improve, poverty in the world decreases, and quality of life of poor people now is much better than 100 years ago. And there's no alternative to capitalism, all other centralized systems fail to create economic growth - check out how people were starving to death in communist countries, or how socialist countries have constant shortages of the most basic goods.
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is traceable because at some point you need to reveal your identity (most commonly - when you exchange it for fiat), so this is the first major point of failure. The second point of failure is that the ledger is public, so investigators can follow transactions until they reach the one that can be linked to your identity. Some people suspect that mixing can be breached now, so Bitcoin can't guarantee privacy. But Bitcoin Cash does absolutely nothing to solve this problem, in fact in only makes it less private by making it harder for people to run full nodes, and we also don't know what else BCC devs might have snuggled into the code.
|
|
|
|
Is it possible that Bitmixer's decision to shut down was related to this case? Like they knew before everyone else? Maybe either they were involved or the revelation makes them less confident in the ability to "wash" coins, like their shutdown announcement declared.
I'm also wondering if the recent darknet market shutdowns provided the last clues to make this arrest, like a bunch of dominoes.
Either it's a very big coincidence, or there's is some connection. Maybe Bitmixer was used by BTC-E or AlphaBay owners, or maybe Bitmixer just saw the upcoming crackdowns and decided to quit and hide before someone gets to them. And I hope that they will be ok, because mixing itself shouldn't be illegal. I wonder if all this shitstorm will spark interest in altcoins like XMR, DASH and ZEC, as well as some new solutions for Bitcoin privacy. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
