As for Dogecoin, lol. If you believe anyone takes this seriously, then I don't know what to say.
Then you should start saying that to everyone on this board who suggests using dogecoin instead of Bitcoin for small purchases, and there is a ton of them trust me, you'll be done by the time the mempool is empty. And if you don't believe it: https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-btc-doge.html#6mThis happens every single time Bitcoin fees spike, thousands move to doge! Is LTC also laughable, or does it simply work? If you ask me, it merely tells us that there are times that there's too much demand for block space. But the congestion we're currently experiencing is not the normal situation. Common this is so 640k RAM will be enough for everyone is getting old! People torrent TB of data every day on their home computers and we're scared of 1TB of storage over a year for a thing that is supposed to threaten a trillion fiat-based economy. Seriously? Latency, data transfer, FML, you have tens of thousands of ....models.....live streaming in 4k but somehow it's magically impossible to push 10MB in 10 fucking minutes to every single hole in this world. But Bitcoin is going to replace banks while serving 600k customers a day!  And furthermore, when some other coins manage to do the impossible, it's laughable! We're going to colonize Mars in 2240 and while beaming in one split second an entire cargo from planet to planet some will still say more than 4MB in 10 minutes it's technically impossible! That's because that's what you believe. In my personal opinion, it's probably better to maintain its current course of development and value decentralization and security more than the accomodation of a higher number of transactions through bigger blocks. Because technically, Bitcoin at its essence might not be a mere "consumer-product", or a network to "replace banks". Plus do you actually believe a single decentralized database could process all of the trillions of financial transactions per day? No? Then use Netflix's centralized/federated data centers with their very-low-latency, high-rate-of-data transfer. That would probably fix the problem. But that wouldn't be a protocol called Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
 Ordinals and tokens might continue to exist "in the blockchain" longer than expected. Udi Wertheimer and Eric Wall, developers of "Taproot Wizards", were given $7,500,000 to "bring magic back to Bitcoin".  I believe with that money, they should hire developers to find solutions and make Bitcoin more efficient with the features they want, and they should definitely take their dick pics and fart sounds off-chain. |
|
|
|
Warren Buffett, the "Oracle of Omaha" who said that Bitcoin is "Rat Poison Squared", has made an investment in a "secret stock", but because it's required to report their investments, he's begging the Securities and Exchange Commission to make the name of that company private. Why does he want to make the name of the company private? I personally don't know, but how LAUGHABLE would it be for the Bitcoin community if that company is MicroStrategy.  Would be a nice twist, but that's highly unlikely. Here's more on that story: https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/warren-buffett-berkshire-hathaway-secret-stock-sales-gm-q3-portfolio-2023-11The reason for them not wanting to disclose the "secret bet" is probably the fact that they are still accumulating and revealing that would drive the price up. It's not like they're trying to hide something because of being ashamed to admitting they were wrong on bitcoin. The secret bet will be made public eventually. Haha. I was merely thinking it would be laughable. Although, because Warren Buffett is a "value investor", he probably should invest some of their capital in MicroStrategy. It was $130.00 during January and it's currently $480.00, it's tracking Bitcoin, and it's probably not going to slow down. I believe as an investor, he should set his emotions aside and swallow his pride, no? |
|
|
|
Circa 2014 the block size wars took bitcoin by storm. Eventually after a lot of drama that has been well documented elsewhere ( I made my own attempt documenting a time line of the blocksize wars, its outcomes and conclusions here). But I'm starting this poll in hopes of getting the community's opinion. So for this post I'll not go through my opinion in the OP. Please feel free to answer the question in the poll and even better if you can also explain your answer. Back in 2015, and after the adoption of a compromise in the form of SegWit, [/b]the topic of the block capacity was very taboo[/b]. It wasn't "taboo", ser. It was because there were some people in the community, like Roger Ver, who were trying to turn it into a philosophical debate, and there were developers, like Mike Hearn, who were spreading FUD and disinformation, when it was merely a technical debate.
Well, we're in 2023 now, and for different reasons congestion is still an issue. Increasing the capacity of bitcoin blocks could potentially be a solution to the issues of high fees and congestion.
So I think it's worth exploring what people think about this issue. Please share your thoughts below.
That's true, but DYOR. Change one parameter on-chain, and it will definitely affect other parameters that could be used as attack vectors against the network. |
|
|
|
1. Where is the trade is made? I guess Binance, I might be wrong
2. What is Mark Price?
3. What is Margin?
4. What is Risk? What does the 9.89% risk means in this particular case?
5. I guess "Est. Liq. Price" means the price at which DOT will be sold. Is that right?
6. What is Cross 10x means?
7. Any other details to pay attention?
There are two types which are isolated and cross margin. In isolated, the money remaining in your future trading account will not be deducted if you are losing. It means you can not transfer more money to increased the liquidation price. Some traders prefer it while opening many positions. Cross margin means if your money used to open position is decreasing, it will also be decreasing from your future trading account. If the price is getting close to liquidation price, you can transfer money to your future trading account to increase the liquidation price so that your money will not be liquidated at the initial price. You will need to use small amount of money to try this and experience what that I am taking about. OP, it should also be emphasized that newbies who want to trade with leverage should use Isolated Margin if you're going to trade more than one contract/asset, especially if the leverage is high like that screenshot. You don't want the paper-loss of one to take the profit of the other. You want them separated. Plus it's probably better to accept a small loss and close the trade, but that's for a different topic. |
|
|
|
From a casino affiliate that could easily earn some $$$$ to working with people that have problems coping
with gambling is selfless and commendable !!! And looking at how good the idea is from its facevalue, is this service free of charge, and for users that face a language barrier do your have other options available... Otherwise hope casino's around can find a way to work with you guys and get to intergrate your services into their platforms  🤔 Wouldn't acting as a casino affiliate, which promotes and encourages gambling, invalidate the real purpose of OP? Although, I do believe that the gambling industry has the responsibility to protect its customers and the people that regularly use their service to make sure that they're living normal and healthy lives. Because one more person that develops a gambling addiction, is another customer eventually lost. |
|
|
|
Warren Buffett, the "Oracle of Omaha" who said that Bitcoin is "Rat Poison Squared", has made an investment in a "secret stock", but because it's required to report their investments, he's begging the Securities and Exchange Commission to make the name of that company private. Why does he want to make the name of the company private? I personally don't know, but how LAUGHABLE would it be for the Bitcoin community if that company is MicroStrategy. |
|
|
|
It's the same during the scaling debate, you spread misinformation. It will be the same in other debates and current "issues". The smart people only need to look at your trust-rating.
the trust rating is meaningless because those commenting are the ones your forum-family instigated to the moderators.. your family caused it so again your trolling you are trying to use as proof. when its jsut your own forum-family trolling to pretend your right I definitely believe not with your negative trust-rating, ser. gmaxwell and achow101, both who are truly respected, honest, and trustworthy Bitcoin Core Developers wrote those NEGATIVE comments and it would be your word against their words. I DEFINITELY trust their words against yours after you and Jonald_Fyookball were misinforming the newbies of BitcoinTalk during 2016 - 2017. Some of us believed you and trusted you, and actually thought that following Roger Ver towards big blocks was the "answer" for the Scaling Debate. But upon DYOR, I learned the HARD WAY. You were lying, spreading misinformation/FUD, and gaslighting. YOUR small family cried to moderators.. your family created the drama. because my opinions were different to the core roadmap sponsored plan But that doesn't change the fact that you are merely a FUDster, who spreads disinformation, and a gaslighter. Because why would our fellow users report you to the moderators, and why would two if the MOST TRUSTWORTHY Bitcoin Core Developers give you a negative trust-rating.
i never followed ver..
But you were always a big blocker though, and that's a FACT. We have debated many times before. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ you are definitely singing your forum-familys hymn sheet. too obvious First it was a forum wife and now a forum family?  WTF dude??? Clearly he's referencing DooMAD, Wind_FURY and their lovechild, BlackHatCoiner. They act as a mafia to suppress research and critical thinking in favor of promoting the Blockstream agenda where we are all ruled by faulty, NWO-esque subnetworks and Layer 2's. That's unfair. it is fair.. but if you dont like being associated in "the family" stop just being a blind sheep copying their antics and pretending that repeating their mantra is "research" It's unfair for him to post that because those users debating against you are merely calling out your bullshit, and NOT trying to surpress research and critical thinking. wow guys this thread really devolved in to alot of bickering and drama. kind of like it always does when ordinals is being discussed. TBH I've put franknbeans on ignore; that way I'm not tempted to respond to him, even though I still end up talking about him  it is indeed a minor shame Dozens - perhaps even hundreds - of threads have been derailed by him over the years. Whenever he posts, discussion usually devolves back to the same tired blocksize debate and completely away from the topic at hand. To get things back on topic, fees are totally fricken out of control at the moment, JFC.  well at least I am getting some bigger fees. I think the high fee issue is never going away. I will just repeat over and over. But ser, from a more objective viewpoint, is this good or is this not good for the network? |
|
|
|
I think it's their strategy to attract more users, considering that simple decentralized exchanges like Uniswap allow instant trading with always-updated rates. The use of DEX like this was quite popular on Ethereum and BSC networks, so perhaps by drawing in altcoin users who are used to such DEX, centralized exchanges can gain more users through this new feature adoption.
Perhaps it's not that. DEX, probably, don't have the ability to build the features that allow users/traders to make limit orders, merely swaps which are truly just market orders. Users could already use market orders for instant conversions if they're in a hurry in CEX. "Swaps" are not a DEX-only feature.
I still prefer order books and queues... they feel more familiar to me compared to the swapping method, where the rates sometimes can't compete with the actual market.
It's also more efficient and cheaper. Although, KYC in centralized exchanges is something many user wants to avoid. The DEX gives everyone a less efficient alternative. |
|
|
|
Will the wallet app itself start implementing some warning/alert option to inform the receiver that the coins are "tainted"?
If a UTXO is banned from coinjoin participation (whether it is due to DoS protection or from blacklisting), the user is showed a message that says "Some Funds Are Rejected From Coinjoining" and a /!\ symbol is displayed next to the UTXO in the coin list which can be hovered over to show the unban time. That's where it starts in my opinion, and it will open a can of worms. Because what if the most popular wallets also started implementing warnings and alerts that the inputs coming in their wallets are "possibly tainted"? How would that make the users feel and what would they do? Those coins would be sold right away, and if enough users are "warned/alerted" by their wallet app, it's probable that "tainted" Bitcoins would be valued less than "clean" Bitcoins. I believe Lightning's real value propostion is in user privacy and fungibilty, not cheap and fast transactions. Isn't there an update that makes the opening of channels look like regular transactions? Users will value such a network and will pay the necessary fees, which will also incentivize Lightning routing nodes. |
|
|
|
It's the same during the scaling debate, you spread misinformation. It will be the same in other debates and current "issues". The smart people only need to look at your trust-rating.
the trust rating is meaningless because those commenting are the ones your forum-family instigated to the moderators.. your family caused it so again your trolling you are trying to use as proof. when its jsut your own forum-family trolling to pretend your right I definitely believe not with your negative trust-rating, ser. gmaxwell and achow101, both who are truly respected, honest, and trustworthy Bitcoin Core Developers wrote those NEGATIVE comments and it would be your word against their words. I DEFINITELY trust their words against yours after you and Jonald_Fyookball were misinforming the newbies of BitcoinTalk during 2016 - 2017. Some of us believed you and trusted you, and actually thought that following Roger Ver towards big blocks was the "answer" for the Scaling Debate. But upon DYOR, I learned the HARD WAY. You were lying, spreading misinformation/FUD, and gaslighting. you are definitely singing your forum-familys hymn sheet. too obvious First it was a forum wife and now a forum family? WTF dude??? Clearly he's referencing DooMAD, Wind_FURY and their lovechild, BlackHatCoiner. They act as a mafia to suppress research and critical thinking in favor of promoting the Blockstream agenda where we are all ruled by faulty, NWO-esque subnetworks and Layer 2's. No but really everything that can possibly be said about this topic has already been said... I think this was accomplished by page 5. There's nothing left to do here except make fun of franknbeans. That's unfair. |
|
|
|
Good evening,
I am from Italy and I have doing matched betting (collecting and mathematically profiting from bookmakers' bonus) fo years.
Hi Gamesearcher and welcome to the forum, I made a topic asking about something like what you're doing to build enough capital for gambling. I believe it's what the gambling community calls "Bonus Whoring". But no one would share their secrets. Hahaha. Perhaps you would want to make a guide and share your successful experiences that made you build enough capital to be used just for gambling? I've tried it before but the wagering requirments are too high, making me either lose money and give up, or lose money after the bonus. |
|
|
|
I have the believe that success in gambling requires a mixture of luck and skill. This is opposed to some people that believe that gambling is entirely a game of luck and others who believe it is entirely a game of skill.
So I am tempted to inquire if skill is all that is needed to be successful in gambling or luck. Whichever be the option, which of them is the most important factor for gambling success?
Gambling is 99% luck and the remaining 1% is base on skills. If our skills is what gives us win, most of us might not win anything because many don't even have the skills at all, all they have been doing is try their luck which some do have a good result while the rest have lost all the time. In casino, skills is what you even need to win because the game is a program that you want to see it in your favour but you can't do that in sports. Look at how the game of Manchester City against Chelsea turn out, the fact that Chelsea hosted the match is going to be an advantage for them but nobody expects them to react that way to equalized all the goals Manchester City, now imagine you have given straight win to Manchester City because they have been having winning streak on their previous matches whole Chelsea has been having less contributions in standing but they ended up as a draw. In a casino game, you can depend on your skills and if you are lucky enough, you can make cook money but it's not guarantee though but sports, most of the time it's all about luck and luck. However, you have to be good in sport analysis before you can achieved a lot. But if you DYOR, what's actually true is you need luck to win when you're playing against the house edge of the casino, but in games like BlackJack, Poker, and gambling on sports, you can find situations that make YOU have a statistical advantage against the house. It may not assure you of the "win", but if you put yourself exclusivley in those situations when you gamble, you definitely will win more than you lose if calculated long term. In the casino it's impossible to have those kinds of situations because the house edge is constant against you. You may win sometimes, but that doesn't change the fact that the house edge is there. Over a longer period of time, you're slowly losing to the casino. |
|
|
|
I totally concur with this acception. Selling is always the worst mistake a Bitcoiner would ever make, some myopic investors sees a dip as the worst times in Bitcoin investment, investors who do not really know what Bitcoin is all about and the real vision. Thereby making them afraid of what the outcome of might be and then go ahead to sell off their Bitcoin, without knowing that dips are on the contrary the one of the best period in Bitcoin investment because it gives you another opportunity to buy and prepare for another Bull run. One major lesson I've learned about Bitcoin is that you only loose when you sell but you're in the safest side and will always make profit when you HODL even in the midst of a great dip. That's the secret of Bitcoin.
[bSelling Bitcoin is never a mistake but a choice[/b] which can either be regarded as a bad or good one which depends on the circumstances. We should not be against selling Bitcoin because most times we tend to buy Bitcoin before we hodl so if no one wants to sell we definitely can't hodl. Hodling is always regarded as the better option because it doesn't require any technicality unlike trading which does. No it's not, but I'm absolutely confident many of those people who sold their Bitcoins during November, 2022 are definitely thinking that they made the wrong "choice" by selling Bitcoin. Plus I don't give financial advice to people except "buy the DIP and HODL", but if I were to give someone any advice, it would be = Don't sell your Bitcoin unless it's for life-changing money. Keep HODLing ser, don't let yourself be front-run by BlackRock, YOU do front-running. |
|
|
|
Another thread that will soon turn into a mega thread, since the statement about Bitcoin’s leadership, especially on the forum about it, does not raise any doubt. Great topic for filling your signature quota. Is anyone ready to guess how many pages will be dedicated to this topic? Although you may be right, let's also take the opportunity to inform the public that it's also very dangerous to maintain the narrative that, "because Bitcoin has the highest market value = then it must be the king". Because what if a shitcoin surpassed Bitcoin's market value? Does it stop being "the king"? Personally, NO of course not. Bitcoin would still be the most robust, the most reliable censorship-resistant cryptocurrency that's doing the best job. No one could put that into debate/question. OP, Bitcoin is definitely the KING. But it's not because of its market value. |
|
|
|
windfury, pick your own buzzwords. stop echoing your forum daddys words like an obedient sheep. you are just echoing trollisms, it makes you look even worse by not having an opinion of your own
(you reading your forum-daddy and your forum-daddy reading you, does not then make you both right because you both read someone else saying what you said. it just means your both the cause and consequence of your own confirmation bias )
(i would not even mind if you atleast came up with your own insulting nickname for me, instead of copying your forum-daddy's nickname, it would atleast show you had alteast 1% independence)
i have been the one actually mentioning TECHNICAL methods to stop it. YOU and your forum daddy have been constructing social drama about philosophy while never mentioning anything TECHNICAL
your philosophy is to say "the dickpic memes wont stop if technical changes are made"..
but TECHNICALLY
if there are tx/block rejection rules /conditions where sigscripts(witness) are no longer upto 4mb and no longer unconditional.. then it will stop.
because then witness data will have rules to know what every byte of a sigscript is suppose to include
imagine if even opreturn didnt just have a 80byte limit but a condition that the content needs to be something or cant have unlimited uses of opreturn per tx
yep code makes rules and rules make conditions and conditions meet the purposes of the payment system
But when you actually DYOR, you learn and truly understand that it was frankandbeans who is really lying and who's gaslighting you into questioning the facts. It might work for people who didn't DYOR, but it won't work for the people who did their research and learned from the right people. It's the same during the scaling debate, you spread misinformation. It will be the same in other debates and current "issues". The smart people only need to look at your trust-rating. |
|
|
|
But the real bad guys wear suits and fight battles against privacy in general. Anyone who wants privacy is their enemy.
Someone should build a fully open source and fully private wallet to stop the bad guys. Oh wait, Wasabi already did What you did is very commendable, except that you decided to work with a blockchain analysis company which make your centralized coordinator actually working for the REAL bad guys. You encouraged them, and you're encouraging them to want more. Will the wallet app itself start implementing some warning/alert option to inform the receiver that the coins are "tainted"? |
|
|
|
So best course of action, ignore and wait until the fad dies on its own...
Not exactly. Ignoring it allows it to fester. doomad in this topic talked about do nothing to the meme junk. let it die out. now he says doing nothing means letting it fester debunking himself yet again In terms of alterations to the protocol, my stance remains "do nothing". That hasn't changed. I'm with you, because are there truly any assurances that embedding dick pics and fart sounds will truly be stopped after an update to disallow Ordinals? Bitcoin Stamps embeds data in the actual blocks.
You're just failing at basic literacy again. So, if you're quite finished making feeble attempts to twist my words, maybe take a few adult education courses or something. Improve your communication skills. They are sorely lacking.
KarenPrime1 is playing 4D Chess and trying to make chaos. Because he sees that there are users in the forum who are trying to make the debate a philosophical one instead of being merely a technical one, he keeps putting fuel into the fire to encourage those people who are making it a philosophical debate. He's playing with all of you. |
|
|
|
I personally have mixed feelings of whether I'd support such a change, but I'd tend to oppose it, because frankly, I believe anyone should have the right to do their bitcoin as they like if they're willing to pay for it. Nonetheless, I'd absolutely love to see other expert's opinions on this.
I would like to hear it as well... Would be nice to get a summary of how Core maintainers and contributors have been approaching the subject and what - if any - changes to the code have been suggested. It seems like they are waiting to see how persistent the issue is going to be and whether or not it warrants any kind of alteration. Even limiting size of witness data may not matter as Ordinals peeps can simply chain transactions together as happens with Recursive Inscriptions. These types of inscriptions will be more costly but will not end the problem of people using Bitcoin for data storage... I don't think anything will. I missed the bottom part of your post. I believe limiting witness data may not only make Ordinals users evolve and "innovate", they'll probably also start storing data within the actual blocks themselves like how Bitcoin Stamps is doing it. It's more costly but what is "cost" to a person who believes he's be storing his/her "art" in a bank vault. consensus is CONSENT of the masses
if it was permissionless you wont need my permission to take my coins.. but reality is you do need my permission via my signature and i dont give you permission to even come anywhere near my wealth.
This again? Really? No one needs your permission to opt in to new rules via softfork No one needs your permission to develop off-chain features No one needs your permission to disconnect another node from their node And (as made evident by this topic) no one needs your permission inject non-transactional data into the chain. Seems pretty permissionless to me. Also, someone could steal your keys. Clearly that act wouldn't require your permission either. Show me in the code where it says that's not allowed. Please stop living in a work of make-believe where you imagine everyone on this network requires your personal approval to do things. Sociopath. You've spent years telling people what they supposedly "can't do", but they keep going right ahead and doing it anyway. You are demonstrably wrong and continue to be wrong every time you repeat this nonsense. Attempting to redefine consensus every time people do something you disagree with is not only futile, but also decidedly petty. delaying/avoiding highway maintenance (to make the highway more efficient) is not a solution
avoiding setting highway code rules for the highway is not a solution
relaxing highway code rules that cause congestion is not a solution
pretending the only option is take an offramp down a different transport network doesnt help if that other transport network has roadwork bottlenecks and many other problems of its own
You're free to write your own highway code if you don't like our one. You could have whatever asinine rules you like. No one is stopping you. Build a testnet to prove it works. Maybe someone will take you seriously (although I doubt it). Or whine some more. That's proven super effective all these years. Devs are just lining up to code your ideas. " KARENPRIME1". Hahahaha! You made my day ser. |
|
|
|
Remember that gambling is risky, even if the bookie is trusted, the point is to do your own research before betting and believe in the bookie, if you are sure do it and if you are not sure don't do it, I personally don't dare say which bookie is honest or not, gambling has its own sequence for bettors.
Exactly. That's what gambling is and the variance of the casino that a gambler will choose still will depend on his or her own experience. Also the risk won't change at all unless the gambler chooses an unknown casino and that has come up with a lot of red flags. But with everything else related to choice, it's not a problem to choose the legit casinos because we have a lot of it if you're just going to lurk on this section, you'll see a lot of it. The best and the worst ones. Understanding a casino and the terms is what we really need to know to start gambling on a Casino. It does not make any sense when we just started using a casino that we see online or we are referred to use without making any research on it. There are gamblers that are never conscious at all and all they care is to make fast profits especially when they see attractive offers from the casino like bonus bets and other benefits. As a gambler, we are all responsible for our decisions and we shouldn't blindly subscribe to a casino because of appealing offers. That might be very true before, many years ago, but it's not currently very true anymore today. Many gamblers, including newbies, could already get information or already know the information about wagering requirements in Deposit Bonuses and in other benefits whenever they're being offered. Forums such us ours, gambling forums and other places where users could meet online and discuss different offers have definitely helped in educating the community. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
