Whats the longest wait you've had for a transfer to go through. I used shapeshift late last night and it still hasn't come through. I just did another one and it went right through.
Mine was more than 24 hours. But it went eventually through. It also looks like many of us will be waiting longer if unconfirmed transactions do not go down, look here https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-countSomeone is flooding the mempool again or we are witnessing abnormally high transactions, maybe because of Bitcoin's rally. |
|
|
|
I do not believe this rally is all because of BTG. That fork is weak and a joke, it is also more rushed than Segwit2x. Who are the developers behind it? All we know is it was started by an Asic manufacturer from Hong Kong. I also cannot access their website, http://btcgpu.org/ |
|
|
|
OP, there was really no support from the people that matter. The Core engineers, who are the best minds in Bitcoin, and the community, and I do not mean the people. I mean the ones who are running the full nodes. The good majority of them still run Core software.  They let their actions speak. "Signalling" from the miners and the merchants signing the NYA mean nothing. This is Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Comments like that make their thoughts known that they want to stop cryptocurrencies because it can ruin their business. They will use reasonings like "to protect the consumer" or "to prevent fraud".
No, they do not want to stop cryptocurrencies, they want their share of profits through taxation. Their plans seem to be regulation, licensing and taxation of exchanges and miners. Do not forget taxation on the users. But ultimately they want control over the financial system and that is something they cannot do with Bitcoin. By its very nature, the people who run full nodes have the control. On November, we will witness it when Segwit2x tries to do the network "upgrade" and fails. |
|
|
|
It can be a risk to the economy because if left unchecked, it could be used for mass money laundering. There's really no risks in it for the people unless they put everything they own into it and it dips and never recovers. I'm happy enough they're not declaring it illegal outright. They'll warm up to it eventually.
Did you now that the biggest banks in the world help drug cartels launder their money, and those same banks fund wars to further the agenda of the politicians they are backing? You are brainwashed into thinking like that. The banks have been corrupting the system and have been oppressing the common people. It is now time to gain some leverage through Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
OP, sometimes the books written about Bitcoin look more like promotional materials than a technical book on teaching us how it works. They also tend to be over simplified by using too much "Alice and Bob" examples. I believe the developer documentation at https://bitcoin.org/en is written well and simple enough for newbies. So go read that and save your money. |
|
|
|
Just another quote with no context. Quite common on media, sad to see crypto media going the same way.
The complete citation is:
"Virtual [currencies] or cryptocurrencies are becoming and have already become more popular. They have already become or are turning into a full-fledged payment instrument and an investment asset in certain countries. At the same time, use of cryptocurrencies also carries serious risks."
Of course with no knowledge about the meeting wouldn't be hard to misunderstand his words
I am sure they are all worried that they are losing control over the whole financial industry. Satoshi knew it would come to this. It might be the reason why he was hiding his real identity. Expect the government to use fear mongering tactics to discourage us from using Bitcoin and to make the public think it is "evil". |
|
|
|
I noticed that most times when btc is rallying almost all of the altcoins dip. and when there is a crash in btc all altcoins suffer as well. my interpretation is that for the first alts can't sustain the price against the $ if btc is high. I believe the traders dump their altcoins to hold Bitcoins so that they can ride the its rally. It is not about price sustainability, it is just dumping one coin for the better coin. and for the second, everyone is panic selling btc.
what do yo guys think ??
The same reason above. When Bitcoins start to dip, the see it as an opportunity to trade their coins to a better coin. |
|
|
|
First, read this Coindesk article, https://www.coindesk.com/vladimir-putin-cryptocurrency-poses-serious-risks/Then, answer this question. It poses a risk for who? Us, the ordinary people, or them the government, the banks and the establishment? Comments like that make their thoughts known that they want to stop cryptocurrencies because it can ruin their business. They will use reasonings like "to protect the consumer" or "to prevent fraud". Sorry, but the community is doing fine, thanks. We do not need your "protection". |
|
|
|
Does this mean that Core Bitcoins are and will always be the most valuable one? We have Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Gold and on November, Segwit2x, all forked from Core Bitcoin.
stop giving weird names to bitcoin! it is not core bitcoin, it is not bitcoin core, or anything else it is simply bitcoin it doesn't have any trailing names to it! Sorry, I am just giving a distinction for this thread. I know there is only one Bitcoin, relax. bitcoin has been forked at least 600 times and that many altcoins have been spawned from it. some of which did airdrops to bitcoin holders. it doesn't make bitcoin more or less valuable than it is. the value of bitcoin comes from its usage and adoption. mostly from being a currency. But Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Gold and Segwit2x/btc1 are different. They are a direct split from the Bitcoin blockchain. It is not comparable to the forked code 600 times. BCC, BTG and B2X can be attained if you have the private keys before the forks. The older your coins are in storage the more access to forked coins you have. It also makes me believe that the older your coins are in your storage, the more valuable they are because they are entitled for all the Bitcoin forks.
some of these forks last for a short time though! for example BitCore (if i am not mistaken) airdrop will end by the end of this month and they distribute the remainder of the airdrop somehow among the existing users. Is this a split from the Bitcoin blockchain or a fork in the code? There is a difference. The first one splits the community, the second one can be a scam. |
|
|
|
It reminds me of the house pricing bubble that has hit the UK in recent years. The trends show uunsustainable growth as the rise was continuous and not showing any signs of slowing down. The nature of most assets is that they work in similar patterns. If there's too much growth over a short period of time, once the 'hubbub' dies downs, the price will correct itself and revert to a 'normal' price point. A legendary member like you should already know that Bitcoin does not work like any other traditional market. If there the term "new economy" should be used, it is supposed to be used for Bitcoin. The only problem with applying this to BTC is that BTC is different to all other assets and has continued to shock economists. Don't take their word for it because you can rest assured that BTC will be noticing new ATH in the near future.
So on what side of the argument are you really in? It looks like you are trying to play it safe. |
|
|
|
NYA has much more money, power and scientists on board than you might know
That's strange, I don't see any scientists supporting segwit2x. In fact, most of the "scientists" in Bitcoin (i.e. the developers and technical community) do not support segwit2x. - and the NYA is already active and saved the asses of the UASF minority fork ( no replay protection!!)
If UASF were a minority fork, it would have hard forked anyways, NYA did not do anything to "save their asses". It is arguable that UASF is what caused the NYA to happen and caused segwit to be activated because it lit a fire under those businesses and miners' asses to activate segwit. Also, a lot of the companies that support segwit2x claim that we need more block space, yet they so far have neglected to implement segwit in their transactions which would allow them to use the extra block space brought by segwit and take advantage of the lower transaction fees. - due to this NO2X can fork off and look for hashpower left (stagnation as I said above)
And segwit2x can fork off and find that no one is actually using their coin. or stay by allowing little more block_size - not a big deal.
That's not happening. It is a big deal to allow a little more block size because it can very negatively effect the network. Why should we stay and work on something we don't believe in and believe is detrimental to the network? Thanks for posting here achow, we need more knowledgeable people like you to give us the correct information. Like what hv_'s arguments has shown is, it is very clear that there are many other Bitcoiners like him that are either brainwashed are misinformed. It is time to change that. |
|
|
|
With the upcoming bitcoin fork and the so called "dividend" that will be received thru bitcoin gold the price of BTC is on the rise. I am considering selling all my altcoins, even at a loss, so that i can buy more of them once bitcoin's price rises up higher.
What are your thoughts on this? Would this be a good strategy?
Are you sure the price of your altcoins are not on the bottom? If they are it would be better for you to keep holding them. You should have thought about this a month ago when the prices were not that bad. |
|
|
|
What are they saying the price will co;;apse the charts sure do not say that. We can expect at some time that we will get a retrace and will pull back. I surely do not except to see this back at 800.00$.
Mr Kenneth Rogoff said that he feels Bitcoin will fall. He feels that this is all due to regulation and central banks. I do feel the price will not stay at this high and I do not see it going much below 3000.00 $. We will have
to look at the liquidity and the trading volatility, if this does not happen the chance is the price will just remain in a tight range. As we know as Financial traders this is very common in all instruments.
UUUMM, no. We have already seen the crash and it was not as bad as we thought. What we are witnessing now is the recovery phase. On November when Segwit2x fails, we will start the moon phase. By December 31, 2017 we will all be happy seeing Bitcoin trading in its new high at $6000. |
|
|
|
|
Does this mean that Core Bitcoins are and will always be the most valuable one? We have Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Gold and on November, Segwit2x, all forked from Core Bitcoin.
It also makes me believe that the older your coins are in your storage, the more valuable they are because they are entitled for all the Bitcoin forks.
|
|
|
|
Another thing we should be against is when the top Bitcoin merchants and the largest miners come together to make an agreement expecting the community to follow them.
But what if we consider that in a different way? For example, in capitalism generally, no company brings a product to market expecting people not to use it. They all want people to use their products. They bring something to market with the expectation of making money and being a profitable company. That's how it has always been. It's down to you, the consumer, to decide which product you want to use. You even have the right to boycott companies if you don't believe them to be behaving ethically. We are talking about Bitcoin, hard forks and its community. It is an open source project, not a "product" some company made. If you start thinking about Bitcoin as some "product" that should be controlled by a group of "companies" then you are lost. Nope, I've made my thoughts about control in Bitcoin pretty plain. I feel that no one group can achieve anything of real worth unless there is a natural synergy between Devs, Miners and Users. Developers, in a sense, are competing for market share, as all they can really do is release what they think is the right code and hope that the other participants in Bitcoin agree, but now other developers have other ideas, resulting in competition and rivalry. I was just drawing a comparison with products and companies to illustrate. But whatever happens, no one is in control. But in Core vs. Segwit2x's case, who should be followed? The users or the miners? The miners are for the NYA, the users are for Core. I saw this picture from another thread. 74% of the nodes are supporting Core. The alternative is asking for a centralised authority, usually a government, to dictate which products can or can't come to the market, with issues around protectionism, "the Nanny-State", corruption and monopoly becoming all too prevalent. No one wants that. Or at least, I hope they don't. So we let the market sort it out. The best product gets the highest market share, in theory, at least. And agreements don't necessarily create the best products. I agree, let the market sort it out. But it is not only that, there is the community too. If the majority of nodes start running Segwit2x/btc1 then ok. If not, then the miners will have a big problem having their blocks accepted. Remember, nodes give demand for blocks that the miners make. This is the part I find most intriguing. What does the real demand look like? Who really cares and are they willing to run a full node to show it? How many 2x non-mining nodes will there be after the fork? How many is enough to maintain the network securely? Could there be geographical gaps in the network topology if there aren't sufficient nodes in certain regions? It's all going to be a pretty fascinating learning experience that will hopefully provide useful data and statistics for the future. Segwit2x nodes should be deployed as early as now I suppose, or those blocks will have no blockchain to end up on. Being a hard fork will not make it easier. So why fight it when you can't prevent it without sacrificing the very thing that makes it good? It's either a free-for-all where everyone competes, or you put someone, or a group of someones, in a position of power in the vague hope that they will protect your interests, even though it usually just turns out that they selfishly serve their own interests instead when they realise no one can stop them.
I'd argue that no one should be against it when you stop to consider the alternative.
As you said, let the market decide. If there is a fight, let that chaos bring us to a better place. Amen. Amen again. |
|
|
|
I support 2x. It is a step in the right direction imo. Ok, I respect that. But also as a sign of respect to the supporters of Bitcoin, is it in your opinion that replay protection should be included in Segwit2x? Ofcourse, its hard to get a vote from all the miners now as they are so concentrated and with different view.
From this comment alone, here is why I believe there are a lot of "Bitcoiners" out there who are uninformed, misinformed or simply do not care. They unaffectedly do not bother to mend their ignorance. |
|
|
|
|
OP, you have everything in reverse. If Bitcoin drops, make it your job to look for more fiat and buy the dip. The main objective is to get as much coins as you can for the big pay off. Trading back and forth will only give more stress and not enough profit as you make mistakes in timing the market.
|
|
|
|
|
Browsing through the thread, I am surprised that there are Bitcoin Cash supporters still wanting to argue about the affairs of Bitcoin. You people have your fork, be happy with it. I truly wish all the success for BCC and its community.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
