We are after few weeks of waiting up reserve accounts to Legendary too lol ,if its needs to wait so long  I'm starting to get worried about no response from theymos or cyrus It doesn't seem like you're familiar with the process of communicating with admins here. If you get an answer in less than a few weeks, you can consider yourself pretty lucky. I contacted them on February 22  Anyways, thanks for the info.. You should send them a reminder PM every now and then though. |
|
|
|
We are after few weeks of waiting up reserve accounts to Legendary too lol ,if its needs to wait so long I'm starting to get worried about no response from theymos or cyrus It doesn't seem like you're familiar with the process of communicating with admins here. If you get an answer in less than a few weeks, you can consider yourself pretty lucky. |
|
|
|
Hi I am a newbie here and I want to ask whether it is safe for me to lend bitcoins to others.
There is always a risk of default, that's why you only give out loans when the user can provide adequate collateral. I have around $0.007 btc earned from faucets,etc.
Are you talking about $0.007 or 0.007 BTC? If the case is with the former, then this amount is economically unspendable due to fees. Even if it is the latter, lending out ~8$ won't get you far. |
|
|
|
Stop asking for no collateral loans, especially if: 1) Your account is new. 2) You don't have any history of trustworthy trades or actions of similar value. I have done this, I will lock the topic too, and i hope he reconsider it..
Lock it right now. Can he remove it?
PM him after you lock it. New account? I will see ..
Don't do that. You're also only a newbie so you could just create a new account and start again.
Not the wisest advice to be handing out freely. |
|
|
|
BU will have 100% of it's own hashrate, when it actually becomes a coin. It might happen sooner than anyone expects  Minor correction: BTU, not BU. thank you sipa for the levelDB bug)
You can't let that go, can you? Why don't you mention the bug that made bitcoin.com mine an invalid block?  P.S if your stance is only core should be on the network then admit your a centralist, get it over with
Nope, Knots should also be on the network. BU should not. Don't over estimate the importance of full node wallets that are not related to mining.
Ironically, you're underestimating the importance of having a decentralized & strong network of full nodes. |
|
|
|
I strongly disagree at this point. Maybe im new but all pro forex traders uses TA for their trades. You will also call them stupid people?
The bolded right there is what makes them *stupid*. Nobody calls themselves a "pro forex trader" unless they are desperately in need of approval. Comparing forex trading to Bitcoin trading is also a logical fallacy.
Testing $1190-$1200 again. |
|
|
|
As to price....are we going to have more FUD with BU and block size now...what do folk think the price will be
BTU* definitely has a negative effect on Bitcoin. I'm hoping for 2 months of just frigging boring sideways....a little less drama and btc showing some 'legs' and stability would be nice before the
Why 'hoping'? we sat around 1100 to 1200 or more for the next 3 months..maybe these types would get a clue
I think if it goes back above $1200 soon that it is a very bullish signal. anyway price of 1200 btc and stable is my bet..others?
$1200+ would be quite amazing after this "disaster" with the SEC. The market seems less and less affected by events (e.g. PBOC banning Bitcoin 93493 times, SEC rejecting the ETF). There is no such thing as true 'TA' for Bitcoin markets. There are just random predictions. After an infinite amount of predictions, a finite amount will come true. |
|
|
|
So, I've reconsidered and I now consider this an obvious spam thread.
It is quite possible but it doesn't necessarily have to be one. It has really affected the price and this time its now decreasing fast.
If you thought for even a second that there was not going to be a crash on a denial, you really need to educate yourself. I think some maybe impressed or discouraged of this intital decrease this days, and I think if gets worsen it mamy be fall below $1000.
Doesn't look like it. It seems to be crawling back to $1200. Yes, it was really obvious that ETF will be denied and the price will go down. I have sold have of my Bitcoin at the peak of the surge, just waiting for the lowest point to buy some.
It is quite possible that you're already late. If the price peaks over $1200 again, you're most likely late. |
|
|
|
So basically almost everyone sold at the bottom? LOL
I know a lot of people who sold between $1100 and $1000. Lessons learned I hope. When in doubt: hold.
>$1200 coming. Buy buy and hold! |
|
|
|
This recovery is quite surprising to be honest? Who was expecting it to be back up at $1200 almost after *rejection*? I'm expecting another down movement soon. Or will we get a second dump later today?  I would be really surprised if there isn't another dump today or tomorrow. |
|
|
|
What's going on?
SEC denied the ETF. There are plenty of threads about it.. everywhere. Does it have to do with the new Bitcoin Core version?
No. No.
Obvious troll thread.
Did I just waste 30 seconds of my life? |
|
|
|
I also see now that bitcoin wants bigger fees to be paid from bitcoin users but I really dont know which is the reason for that so I am interested if maybe somebody here know?
Fees are determined primarily by the market supply (block space) vs. demand. The current demand is quite larger than the supply, therefore people are including higher fees in order to prioritize their transactions. Therefore, the required fee to get included in a block grows. You're also wrongly talking about Bitcoin as a singular entity from what I gathered in your post. |
|
|
|
imagine a case where there were 2 limits.(4 overal 2 for nodes 2 for pools)
hard technical limit that everyone agree's on. and below that a preference limit (adjustable to demand of dynamics).
Yes, that's exactly what my 'proposal/wish' is supposed to have. A dynamic lower bound and a fixed upper bound. The question is, how do we determine an appropriate upper bound and for what time period? Quite a nice concept IMHO. Do you agree? i even made a picture to keep peoples attention span entertained
What software did you do this in? (out of curiosity) The challenge is now to find a number for this cap. I had done some very rogue calculations that a 1 TB/year blockchain (that would be equivalent to approximately 20 MB blocks) would enable 160 million people to do about 1-3 transactions (depending on the TX size) per month. That would be just enough for this user base if we assume that Lightning Network and similar systems can manage smaller pauments. 1 TB/year seems pretty high, but I think it's manageable in the near future (~5 years from now).
Problems: 1) 20 MB is too big right now. 2) 1 TB is definitely too big. Just imagine the IBD after 2 years. 3) You're thinking too big. Think smaller. We need some room to handle the current congestion, we do not need room for 160 million users yet. Increasing the block size cap in the simplest manner would avoid BU technical debt, as the emergent consensus mechanism probably wouldn't work very well if people do not configure their nodes (it would hit a 16MB cap in a more complicated manner.)
Preference level for me: Segwit + dynamic block size proposal (as discussed so far) > Segwit alone > block size increase HF alone > BTU emergent consensus. The latter is risky and definitely not adequately tested. |
|
|
|
|
This statement has become quite ironic, hasn't it?
|
|
|
|
 Prepare for the FUD articles everywhere. The media has been waiting for this. |
|
|
|
Banning Round 17: The following users were banned: sj2199
mega
whale123
tazmania
pieppiep
pungopete468
patrickmh
strunberg
shiunsai
ashapasa
avikz
adel hmdt
angryswamp
taurados #Rule violation
brituspol
emezh10
Integ
zedicus
purebitco
frendsento
[**] - Permanently banned.
If you have questions regarding your ban (or other personal questions), then PM me. Do not post non campaign specific / personal issues here. Read the following before wasting my time: [Forum / Campaign] Why have I been banned? Posting guidelines.
Unbanned in this round: drwtsn32, Jemzx00, agustina2, tonto
Minor change as of today: Rule-breakers are not going to be publicly listed in the second post anymore (unless they got permanently blacklisted; exceptions apply). They will however get listed in individual banning rounds as usual. Therefore, I have removed that list from said post. |
|
|
|
This has nothing to do with "toxicity". TX malleability is a known and important issue. Anyone is free to exploit it whenever they want to, just like any other attack vectors. Do keep in mind that "pushing for Segwit with this method" is pure bullshit from BTU folk. Segwit does not solve malleability of standard TX.
Only uneducated people with a lack of understanding would assume that miners are honest or that they will always work towards the common good. Bitcoin is not socialism. |
|
|
|
Has SEC ever gave any information during weekend? I mean is it possible that they will post update tomorrow?
No, that is not possible. It is either today or Monday. The latter is less likely though. |
|
|
|
I'd also consider tweaking mine to a lower percentage if that helped, or possibly even a flat 0.038MB if we wanted an absolute guarantee that there was no conceivable way it could increase by more than 1MB in the space of a year.
I don't like fixed increases in particular either. Percentage based movements in both directions would be nice, but the primary problem with those is preventing the system from being gamed. Even with 10%, eventually this 10% is going to be a lot. Who's to say that at a later date, such movements would be technologically acceptable? The thing to bear in mind is we'll never make any decision if we're too afraid to make a change because there's a possibility that it might need changing at a later date. Plus, the good news is, it would only require a soft fork to restrict it later. But yes, movements in both directions, increases and decreases alike would be ideal. This also helps as a disincentive to game the system with artificial transactions because your change would be undone next diff period if demand isn't genuine. You could argue that it may already be quite late/near impossible to make such 'drastic' changes. I've been giving this some thought, but I'm not entirely sure. I'd like to see some combination of the following: 1) % changes either up or down. 2) Adjustments that either align with difficulty adjustments (not sure if this makes thing complicated or riskier, hence the latter) or monthly adjustments. 3) Fixed maximum cap. Since we can't predict what the state of the network and underlying technology/hardware will be far in the future, it is best to create a top-maximum cap a few years in the future. Yes, I know that this requires more changes later but it is better than nothing or 'risking'/hoping miners are honest, et. al. |
|
|
|
I support SegWit I forgot to mention in my previous post, that this is a healthy stance to have as the majority of the technology oriented participants of the ecosystems are fully backing Segwit. I could get behind Achow101's proposal (the link in that linuxfoundation text ended with an extraneous "." which breaks the link) if that one proves less contentious. I think it does, as it doesn't initially reduce the block size. This is what made luke-jr's proposal extremely contentious and effectively useless. I'd also consider tweaking mine to a lower percentage if that helped, or possibly even a flat 0.038MB if we wanted an absolute guarantee that there was no conceivable way it could increase by more than 1MB in the space of a year.
I don't like fixed increases in particular either. Percentage based movements in both directions would be nice, but the primary problem with those is preventing the system from being gamed. Even with 10%, eventually this 10% is going to be a lot. Who's to say that at a later date, such movements would be technologically acceptable? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
