You are a terrible person.. If ISIS filth start using BTC, then you can say goodbye to the price.
That won't happen, we'll just steal all their Bitcoin because their security will be shit  I would somewhat doubt their security would be shit. They would most likely actually keep most of their computers offline until they actually need/want to push a TX to the network as they would not want to be tracked by the US military as there are very few internet connections in Iraq |
|
|
|
Unlikely the 21 million cap will ever be 'reached'. It can be approached, but it is designed as an asymptote that is never reached. In the unlikely even that your scenario happens in the last 2 weeks leading up to 2140 the 21 million cap could technically be slightly surpassed though.
This is not true. The block subsidy will automatically change based on the number of blocks mined and once the number of blocks mined is equal to an amount that causes the total number of bitcoin ever mined to be 21 million then the block subsidy will change to 0 (I forget which block this will be on). @OP - it is a common misconception that the difficulty will change every two weeks, as this is not correct. The difficulty will change every 2016 blocks to a difficulty that would have caused the previous 2016 blocks to be mined in exactly 2 weeks if the difficulty was what it is going to be changed to. As a result if all the miners were to stop mining then no new blocks would be created so it would not be possible to ever get to the next difficulty retarget. To answer the question in the title of your post, yes all bitcoin will almost certainly be mined prior to the year 2140 as the difficulty has increased so much that each 2016 set of blocks has, on average been mined in much less then every two weeks. |
|
|
|
1+ I think it is useful this function ( I hope to see it in the new forum version).
+1. It is a good feature. I hope this will be implemented in New Forum.  ~~MZ~~ While I agree it would be a pretty cool feature, I think it would lead to increased activity in the off topic section aka spam section which is not what the forum needs. Additionally you could simply make the background color to be the same as the color of the test to do effectively the same thing as a spoiler tag. |
|
|
|
|
It has been said that theymos gives this a low priority and will only complete a few of such requests per month.
|
|
|
|
Hi thanks for your replies, it wasn't talhat the address was entered incorrectly I just assumed if you sent the coins to the address that sent them then the account would receive them. Like a mobile number sending a text if 01234 sends a text to 56789 then 56789 can reply by sending a text to 01234 and 01234 would receive the text? So if I send coins it shows up saying buffoon address XXX sent 1.0btc the address that shows up is not an address linked to the sending account? I'm so confused  The address you posted that you received the coins on has 0 activity.. Not sure what you are up to but this post seems screwed up on many levels... Clicking on the link the OP posted would cause the user's default client to start to create a new TX to that address (the user would still need to fill in the amount, tell the client to send and enter the password if applicable) so I think he was trying to get people to accidentally send him money. Also the address the OP supposedly sent the coins back to is not a valid Bitcoin address so any TX that would attempt to send inputs to that address would get rejected by the network |
|
|
|
I'm heavily invested at both LTCGear and GAW. /shrug
If I can find cheap power I'll run my own machines again but until then.. spreading the risk between these two is working fine. If I run across another decently run outfit I'll probably invest with them as well.
I'm pretty heavily invested in LTCGear. The simple reason we are promoting them is, we are all making money. They have been in business for over a year, payouts are early, accurate, issues are resolved fast. You are more then welcome to join us on freenode @ #ltcgear. You won't find a frustrated customer there, try to find that elsewhere!
I am curious to know why so many accounts suddenly popped up that are "invested" in LTCgear "shares" since they started advertising on the forum. I have never heard of them before a few weeks ago, but I now see probably hundreds of people claiming to be invested in them |
|
|
|
Is that true about merged mining? I thought mining other coins didn't affect the amount of btc you mine?
It doesn't. Like others said, it's probably luck. How long have you been mining for? It should even out in the long run. Over the long run merged mining should allow for someone to have a slightly increased EV over solo mining (if on a large enough scale) |
|
|
|
#peercoinuserunaffected
but seriously though, ouch! did you have insurance?
I don't think insurance would have helped the OP, as most homeowners insurance will not cover electronic devices unless they have a special rider and the insurance company receives documentation regarding the value of the electronics prior to any loss |
|
|
|
Want to gamble? Go fund the bankroll of some gambling or dice site. Try looking at dicesites.com.
You have about 150 BTC to play with. Spread it around. But be careful, some of them disappeared, and some have ninjas (that go poof as well.)
Oh my, that would really be a gamble. The OP would not only need to gamble that the site is not going to be in some way attacked and/or have bad luck, but also need to gamble that the site is not a scam (or running a long term scam). I would say that the later issue would make mining in even negative EV miners a better "bet" then investing in the bankroll in gambling bankrolls |
|
|
|
|
I would say very little of the network is run on miners that run at 180 Ghs or less. I would imagine that the bitcoin network, like most other economies will be focused on larger miners with higher capacities (and higher efficiencies) and having these miners be turned off would likely have a small impact on the overall hashrate
|
|
|
|
I have no doubt that quite a few of these are ponzis. Once these blows up it will be a good exercise to see what percentage was legitimate.
I am not sure about "quite a few" (this implies it is man/most of them) but I would say that a non-zero number of them are ponzis. I would especially consider LTCgear to most likely be a ponzi. I think that once the first cloud mining site proves to be a ponzi, it will be much more difficult for other sites to continue to sell their mining capacity (and it may be a good time to invest in cloud mining if you are certain the company you are buying from is not a ponzi) |
|
|
|
its not profitable to buy mining hardwares this days to mine bitcoins  It is still profitable and Bitcoin is not the only one to mine - there are other altcoins.  This, mine some of them there altcoins. Jeebus knows there are enough of the damned things... Altcoin mining is a losing game. The price of alts will decline over time and as a result the EV of altcoin mining will decline over time at a greater rate then the EV of mining bitcoin (as altcoins will have their difficulty increase just as bitcoin will) |
|
|
|
Hey OP, I got an answer as to why the difficulty was slowed down last jump:  It was said to be 5MW facility...... I guess that makes you.... wrong again huh? Oh wait.... you're never wrong. Infact you should predict next difficulty jump to be 0-30%. You can never be wrong then. I am not entirely sure what happened here, but I don't see any real reason why they would have to take all these miners offline. I would think they would surely have some kind of backup facility these miners could be moved to, as it appears that only the "shelves" collapsed and the miners appear to be in good condition |
|
|
|
It would probably be best to use the escrow services of a trusted member of the forum. Their prices are generally free/tips and you will get human judgment in the event that something goes wrong. There are a lot of website-escrow-scams when the site is not actually acting as "escrow" here is a list of members who offer escrow services |
|
|
|
I also have the problem with trust showing 0 / 0 Trust depth was at 2
Changed it to 3 now, and now it shows 0 / +1 (1)
Is this correct now ?
There is no "correct" nor "incorrect" trust setting for you to set on your profile. The trust depth and who is in your trust network is entirely up to you and should only be used as a guide to help you determine if it is appropriate to "trust" someone or not |
|
|
|
Bottom line, if you can't trust someone like TECSHARE, who has conducted himself impeccably
Until now... Should never leave negative feedback for personal reasons, esp if you are on the default trust list. I got drunk one night and left negative feedback for someone based on a personal reason. The next day the community ripped me a new one before I apologized and removed it. I have no idea why the same thing is not happening here. I'm also on default trust, but I don't personally reserve feedback for business transactions. You were made aware of this yesterday lol That being said, I don't hand out feedback frivolously. I don't believe TECSHARE does, either. The trust system is just a way to publicly announce who you personally trust or distrust and why. I'm sure TECSHARE is well aware that if he were to frivolously provide negative feedback to a whole bunch of people it would kill his reputation. Accordingly, I perceive this as an anamoly. IMO feedback should only be given out if you have a legitimate reason to either trust or distrust someone. Except for very extreme circumstances you should not give negative feedback for personal reasons (although the feedback system is not moderated). I agree that if feedback is given for invalid reasons (as per what members of the community think) then a person's "real" level of trust and reputation will be tarnished. It is also noteworthy that any given person is only on default trust for as long as others on "level one" of default trust deem necessary for them to be on default trust (in other words this status can be revoked at any time) |
|
|
|
Good luck with that one! LOL! Why should IRS are the only organization to have this kind of authority. Why cant we, the bitcoin community make our own lawsuit to fight against government.
Other law enforcement agencies have similar authority. Also the IRS does not simply take the money, they get a court order to have the court garnish money on the IRS's behalf. This is allowed as per statues. A lawsuit is not a good approach to this problem. A more efficient way in getting this ability changed would be to vote for political leaders who would be willing to get these statues (laws) changed. Well I would say that what the IRS is doing is not illegal. It is following the law, which gives them the authority to seize assets like this. So a lawsuit would do no good as no tort has been done and no crime has been committed. If you want to stop the IRS from being able to do this then the law needs to be changed |
|
|
|
Dota 2 ... |
|
|
|
Its not a scam, just not a good investment thats all... |
|
|
|
|
Hate Martingale system, it never worked for some reason...
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
