It's been weeks now since i play gambling games or we may say casino games, sometime i played it just for fun but when i won, my greediness comes and trying to recover my lose bitcoins and want to earn more but ending up losing all my money. For me gambling is good just to have fun and beat boredness but if you want to make money by playing casino i think it's not a good idea because you never know how many luck you have it's either you lose all your money or double it. but most of the time i lose all my money for you guys what do you think of playing casino games is it good or not?
If you are gambling just for fun with no intention of making money it's cool. Gambling for fun and losing should be taken as part of the amount you paid for your entertainment. If you consider it as a loss and start gambling again, it stops being fun and becomes an addiction. If you are always sticking to gambling whenever you are getting bored is the best way to get addicted to it. Choose some forms of other leisure activities as well. In short, keep it as means of a simple entertainment where you have a threshold limit, don't cross the limit and it keeps entertaining you. Wikipedia has dedicated a page for "ludomania", so better as fun than mania. |
|
|
|
Ive searched that bread wallet connects you directly to the blockchain network and then will serve as a wallet. But whats good here is that your naming your own bitcoins and is not hosted by services that promise you this amount of coin. Is this really good. I wanted to know the pros and cons. Anyone who can share his/her experience?
Why do you want to use breadwallet when there is blockchain wallet for all versions. Breadwallet is popular for iOS and they recently launched the Android version, simple to use wallet, you can import private key of another wallet, password recovery phrase, but in terms of security I do not know whether it's good. If you are using an Android device I would suggest, https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=de.schildbach.walletYou can send via Bluetooth even if you are offline. Paper wallet cum cold storage. And, blockchain wallet, https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=piuk.blockchain.androidIf security is your priority use blockchain wallet, but it's a bit buggy. Always choose a wallet where you have access to private keys. |
|
|
|
While the regulating process is in work, the government has decided to crack down illegal exchanges and pyramid Ponzi schemes that are luring the investors. And if I am right gainbitcoin is a pyramid scheme which is being marketed as a cloud mining platform. Many scam accusations have popped up against it, but if they do have mining rigs and their operation is legit and transparent, I guess they will get through or it would be added to countless list of Ponzi cloud mining schemes. https://news.bitcoin.com/indian-government-cracks-down-illegal-bitcoin-activities-regulations/ |
|
|
|
Sometimes when I withdraw BTC to my wallet, I set really low fees like 50-70 satoshi per byte and wait for weeks, because I'm not going to spend those coins in the near future anyway. I think it's a good way to save a bit of money, because if you look back, you might realize that your fees have added up to a big amount in USD value, while it wasn't always necessary to get those coins confirmed asap.
So, do you use low fees, or always want to get confirmation in a next few blocks?
For this particular transaction, https://blockchain.info/tx/c7c8fcfe061cb44a2c44de54a055862c8e97c3f7a7184f3087bed74e18c5d328Blockchain recommended a fee of 0.0038, I just sent it with 47 sat/B and got it confirmed with ViaBTC within couple of hours. If it is not an emergency transaction, using a fee of 0.0002 BTC is enough to get it confirmed eventually. Now the current situation has forced some wallets and exchanges to setup a fixed minimum or standard fee, up to 0.003, equivalent of $8, users who want to withdraw small amounts would not agree with these fees . Kraken has just increased their fee to 0.0025 and now I have altogether stopped using Xapo. Glad there are still exchanges in India with a fixed fee of 0.0005 and fast confirmations. |
|
|
|
|
Looking at the current scenario, it would not be wrong to conclude that the technical aspect of the scaling debate is almost forgotten, it is more of a struggle for power to dominate the bitcoin network.
At first BIP 100 and 101, both hard forks, one to increase the block size based on miners decision, the other a one-time block size increase from 1 MB to 8 MB, 2015 gone debating over the incompatibility of these two.
Then comes BU and SegWit, the blame game continues, one leads to centralization + would put small node operators out of business, the other one is also somewhat centralized in terms of LN + increasing the block size to 2 and then 4 MB might be enough temporarily, but sooner or later it needs to be increased. 2016 gone.
Then Segwit2x, Segwit + increasing block size to 2 MB via a hard fork.
And then BIP148, in this whole BU vs Segwit drama, the two Goliath's, BIP148 is David, and we users are just the spectators. They are not fighting, just stalling each other, and sooner or later the audience would get bored.
Hope 2017 would not be another year of endless debates with zero outcome.
|
|
|
|
|
This peer-to-peer digital electricity trading smart contract is between RES suppliers and users and if I am right it is solar power based, not wind. India is a booming market for renewable energy, many wind farms and solar grids. Now this question might sound utterly stupid, in India renewable industry comes under Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, means the government should be on one end of the contract as a supplier, right. And if that country has not legalised BTC or ETH, that would be tricky. Yeah there might be privately owned power generation systems, but I was just wondering. Hope it makes sense. And the concept is really amazing. Blockchain technology has the potential to make this world a better place for all.
|
|
|
|
Apart from accepting bitcoins and installing BTMs at airports they are planning to have a few more bitcoin add-ons: 1. Peach’s bitcoin wallet for customers. 2. Making bitcoins available as a mode of payment at mutually agreed souvenir shops, restaurants, accommodation facilities, etc, at travel destinations. 3. Adding the option to shop at their duty free shop, Fuchsia by Peach, with bitcoins. The outcome would be a simple hassle-free, wallet less, exchange less traveling experience. https://news.bitcoin.com/japanese-airline-to-install-btms-and-introduce-its-own-bitcoin-wallet/ |
|
|
|
It's not a secret Satoshi Nakamoto has more than 1 million of Bitcoins in his wallet, right?
If he suddenly wants to sell all his Bitcoins, could it cause a chaos in Bitcoin market making the price fall? Or is this amount too insignificant to cause any mess?
About 1 million, mining blocks of 50 each, 7% of bitcoins. Obviously if Satoshi decides to sell his coins it would cause a chaos, price would plummet, moreover it would cause a psychological impact, Satoshi selling his stash means he has no more faith in his creation. That would be disastrous for the community. About an year ago, Theymos had proposed that old/lost coins should be destroyed before it gets stolen and cause a disastrous monetary inflation and this proposition wasn't well looked upon by the community, assuming that it suggested Satoshi's bitcoins should be destroyed. Yeah, this is a centralized approach and anyone with coins in their wallet have the right to access it whenever they want to. But from a security point of view it is a big risk, if the coin gets stolen it would have the same impact if Satoshi dumps it himself. We have good reasons to believe Satoshi would not take such an irrational step. |
|
|
|
Xapo, greate support. Xapo transaction fee - Xapo to Xapo: FREE - Xapo to other: Miner fee (option to pay either https://support.xapo.com/what-is-the-difference-between-a-standard-or-high-priority-transaction-fee/view=faq )With standard priority fees, your transaction should get mined approximately within the next 6 blocks on the blockchain. If the bitcoin network is congested (you can always check the blockchain's volume https://statoshi.info/dashboard/db/transactions), there can be a delay in the mining of the transaction.
By selecting high priority fees, your transaction should be mined approximately within the next 1-2 blocks on the blockchain. If you choose to pay this higher fee, you will be giving the miners a larger incentive to mine your transaction faster than normal transactions!- Other to Xapo BTC wallet: Free (unless you're receiving small transactions, in which you are charged a fee and need to check this fee page http://in.xapo.com/fees/) More than BTC 0.00117345: 0 Between BTC 0.0007823 and BTC 0.00117345: BTC 0.0007823 Less than BTC 0.0007823: Total amount received -Other to Xapo fiat currency wallet: BTC/FX exchange rate Xapo has incredulous fees now, Outgoing transactions from your Xapo account to an external address will be charged a standard fee of BTC 0.00222851 or you can choose to pay a higher priority fee of BTC 0.00331289 in order to have your transaction processed more quickly! There are faucets with Xapo payout option, use your Xapo ID on these faucets. And now since ePay is dead, there is only FaucetHub (FaucetSystem is there, but not much user base), instead of withdrawing smaller amounts, withdraw when you have more than 0.001, or you would just end up increasing the inputs. Never use the recommended fee on Blockchain, it's always too damn high, just use a custom fee. I have recently sent a transaction with just 40 Sat/B and got it confirmed through ViaBTC. If you are okay with a confirmation time of 6 to 24 hours 0.0002 fee would be enough. |
|
|
|
Since Bitcoin was ever released, I've thought of the possibility of this. Will crimes be easily funded now due to bitcoin and it's anonymity? How do you think the authorities will combat this? Will this lead to a decline in the price of bitcoin? I've had this on my mind for a while now and I would like to hear your guys opinions.
Yes, crimes were being funded before bitcoins and the anonymous nature of it makes it an easily available resource for illegal activities. It is the crimes to be blamed not the currency itself. Silk Road, Tomáš Jiříkovský, Mt. Gox, Trendon Shavers, these were involved in illegal activities like drugs, money laundering, fraud and running Ponzi schemes. These were nabbed by FBI and other law enforcement agencies. So it is does not mean if you are doing something illegal with bitcoin makes you immune from its legal consequences. Every transaction you made is out there in public, mixers make it difficult to trace the trail, but enforcement agencies are working with encryption specialists to track down the whole source and nab down the offenders. No, not everyone who is using bitcoins have bad intentions, they are the minority. Majority of us are law-abiding, tax-paying bitcoin users. So it would not affect the price, but it would tamper the reputation and give freedom to a few economists or random columnists to say that bitcoins have value only because of illegal usage. |
|
|
|
I have seen people start to call BTC "Digital Gold" in a delusional attempt to ignore serious issues.
Please pay attention to this fact:
"Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" ~Satoshi
BTC is not "Digital Gold" as our founder clearly stated.
Bitcoin is an amazing experiment which is currently on life support, despite the rush of fools who insist on recreating a Tulip Bubble Ponzi Mania.
Please, Stop Calling Bitcoin "Digital Gold".
Thank you.
ps. (Unanswered from a previous thread)
What "store of value" is relevant when suddenly ~ hundreds of thousands of merchants worldwide can no longer accept BTC due to high fees?
True or False?
"Digital Gold" is a BS claim from people who deny the reality of the current crisis?
True or False?
Do you want BTC to be only for rich people?
Apart from electronic cash, Satoshi did refer to bitcoin as an implementation of Nick Szabo’s BitGold proposal. As a thought experiment, imagine there was a base metal as scarce as gold but with the following properties:
- boring grey in colour
- not a good conductor of electricity
- not particularly strong, but not ductile or easily malleable either
- not useful for any practical or ornamental purpose
and one special, magical property:
- can be transported over a communications channel
If it somehow acquired any value at all for whatever reason, then anyone wanting to transfer wealth over a long distance could buy some, transmit it, and have the recipient sell it.
Bitcoin can be categorized as digital cash as well as gold because it can be used both as a store of value, and as a payment medium. It would be inappropriate to compare Tulip Mania with BTC, during that time, Tulips were used as a currency and traded, but it was restricted to Netherlands only. Look at the impact of bitcoins, not restricted to a particular region, internet money, anyone with internet anywhere can access it. This obviously gives bitcoin some advantage over Tulips. Yeah, the current crisis is definitely problematic. Many options have been put forward, waiting for Segwit to be activated by 2018 would take a toll on bitcoin community. The imminent solution might split the chain. |
|
|
|
We tell our friends about it and they buy it at 10% more than you paid for it just because you have the in.
Did they really need this in their lives?
How could bitcoin in itself be a MLM scheme? Bitcoin is a currency, not an organization where you will get paid for introducing people to it, but it's just that some of the MLM companies have Incorporated bitcoin or altcoins as a payment option. And then there are pyramid schemes. I guess for most of us speculating bitcoin price is somewhat a tricky affair. People below the age of 20 and above 60 have invested on bitcoins, some of them have studied the bitcoin market thoroughly, gone through the charts, speculating events which might boost BTC price and others are just going with the market flow. It would not be possible to predict an accurate BTC price at any given point in time so in my opinion introducing friends or family to bitcoin is awesome, but let them decide if they want to buy or invest. |
|
|
|
UASF is an interesting and very aggressive move towards forcing a split. I think the most pushed-for UASF in the form of BIP148 is far too aggressive too soon and is doomed. August 1 is very close and gives the compromisers very little time to formulate a meaningful and safe middle ground (read segwit + 2MB) to keep miners on board and avoid any splits. Should no compromise occur before that time, those signalling BIP148 will be left feeling very cold with almost no hashrate to support them, and a dead slow blockchain going nowhere. The proponents of BIP148 say there is nothing to lose and that those who are on the main chain will be the ones to lose when a reorganisation happens in the future and the uasf chain becomes the only active chain. I think this is fanciful given the absolutely minuscule miner support it currently has to create such a chain. The only realistic chance it has is if it is also coupled with the ridiculously destabilising move of changing proof of work since it will no longer need existing miner support. This of course then turns it into a hard fork as well...
What I think will happen is UASF will continue to be perceived as a threat that will make the existing players more likely to accept a compromise. The Silbert agreement was doomed from the start without any code or developers or core support but then again it was an overwhelming display of what the miners would agree to. UASF and specifically BIP148 has forced core developers to try and find that compromise point before any significant split could occur. In fact should this eventuate, and I believe it will, those who mine true UASF blocks from August1 before a compromise soft fork will be the only ones left on a dead end fork with a block chain that joins no one.
A large number of core developers are against BIP148 while most are for UASF in principle. UASF could in fact work without such an aggressive short time frame and core support but BIP148 is forcing the issue too soon with too little support.
Obviously the biggest risk of BIP148 is a chain split, but it could be avoided with a split protection soft fork, BIP9 and most importantly this would then lower the SegWit lock-in percentage to 65% from 95%, plus this BIP provides a method for rapid miner activation of SegWit mandatory signalling ahead of the BIP148 activation date, August 1. Obviously, at the end everything depends on majority, but this option seems much safer. https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-June/014508.html |
|
|
|
|
It would take quite some time for bitcoins to change the banking system. The problem is that a good number of bitcoin users have restricted themselves to thinking that BTC serves only two purposes, gambling and trading. Somewhere because of this the original peer-to-peer payment objective is getting overruled. I do not think most of the traders would even think twice about scalability issues and current fees, as far as bitcoin price is increasing, they are happy with it. Micro transactions are no longer possible, merchants who had opted for bitcoin as a payment option have taken a hit.
But still there a lot of good things happening, a few countries are planning to legalise bitcoins, major stores accepting bitcoin, major industries opting for bitcoin. The next step is making bitcoins available for purchasing almost everything that can be bought with fiat. Fees issue would be resolved soon, at least by 2018. Expecting bitcoin growth would make banks or fiat disappear would be bit too much to ask.
|
|
|
|
Stop calling the recent expansion of the cryptosphere a bubble. We are not in a bubble. We are simply experiencing the rapid expansion of a nascent technology with new entrants and their fiat entering the market. A bubble is when everyone is talking about cryptos, e.g. your taxi driver, the bellboy, etc. Outside of my close circle of tech colleagues zero people are talking about Bitcoin.
Dr. Robert Shiller's checklist on how to predict if something is a bubble or not. The solution: a checklist like psychologists use to determine if someone is suffering from, say, depression. So here is Mr. Shiller’s checklist.
* Sharp increases in the price of an asset like real estate or dot-com shares
* Great public excitement about said increases
* An accompanying media frenzy
* Stories of people earning a lot of money, causing envy among people who aren’t
* Growing interest in the asset class among the general public
* “New era” theories to justify unprecedented price increases
* A decline in lending standards
Now most of these points can be applied to bitcoins, almost 200% growth in the last few months. Dot-com was a bubble and it popped, and bitcoins are similar to it in terms of technological advancement, almost all technological breakthroughs in the past have caused a substantial impact on the market, no matter how small it was, but the whole concept of bitcoin is different. So is it a bubble? Yes and no. Obviously anyone would get a bit skeptical when a currency has such a tremendous growth in a very short period of time. But mass adoption can be logically applied as a reason behind it. Being a currency, as far as the user base increases + the areas where bitcoins can be applied increases, it would be in demand, and would not just go out with a burst. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is not banned by most countries, simply because you are liable to pay bitcoin taxes. Exchanges (trading) charge government levied service tax or sales tax. VAT (value added tax) on trading bitcoin as a commodity. Income taxes on purchase of goods (e-commerce) or services. Payroll taxes if you are getting your salary in bitcoins. Different countries have different tax regulations on bitcoins, but one way or other you are paying taxes on bitcoins. If India legalises bitcoins they would impose FEMA. Nevada Becomes First US State to Ban Blockchain Taxes http://www.coindesk.com/nevada-first-us-state-ban-blockchain-taxes/ |
|
|
|
how many country of the world now accept btc?  Almost all major countries have no regulations on accepting bitcoins, but apart from a couple of countries, bitcoins are not legalised. Neither banning bitcoins nor putting regulations on it. Usage of bitcoin is strictly prohibited in Bangladesh, Ecuador, Kyrgyzstan, and Bolivia. India might soon legalise bitcoins. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_bitcoin_by_country_or_territory |
|
|
|
...
1. No one is forcing, or is it everyone is opposing, doublethink. well it is my understanding that this BIP148 is a rushed decision forcing the segwit activation to happen. 2. UASF, soft fork is much better option than getting a hard fork involved and probably collapsing everything, there might be a split, but still a major chance to recover.
what hard fork? as far as i know SegWit has always been a softfork! but this UASF has a much higher risk of splitting the chain and collapsing everything than any well thought and with majority support fork has. and that is a big risk, specially when the price (subject of this topic) is concerned. 3. Scaling means risk, it is the foundation of what BTC or any other crypto is. You do not want to scale, stagnate your growth, it's cool, but see bitcoin does not have that choice, supply and demand does not come with much choices.
not at all. scaling doesn't mean risk. look at Litecoin. it activated segwit without any problems. it is forcing the scaling that is risky and the more you insist on a fork with small amount of support the higher the risk will be. why do you think SegWit activation target is set to >95%? 4. We/not mine your we/failing to grasp important matters/is suicidal for your thought process.
sorry i don't understand this sentence  Chill buddy.
i can't when i see support for UASF - from nodes is very small - from hashrate is very small - from developers is also small. (many of them are against it!) 1. If segwit does not get activated by 95% nor the 51% of BIP148. Left is BIP149 which the core is in favor of and from what I read it would take 2018, cool. Let one more year of congested, high fees monopoly continue and existing price and users should also continue. Awesome. 2. Have you heard of Jihan Wu, BU. Yeah risk of splitting is obviously there, two sides with opposite opinion and approximately same hashpower, nope same, but miners changes everything. What do you expect. Getting a majority, good luck with that. If that happens too damn good for the community. If BIP148 gets rolling Segwit would be activated, so I don't see any harm in that, split would be temporary, non-segwit miners would not have any other choice other than switching 3. Are you kidding? Based on adoption there is no comparison. If litecoin would have been globally adopted like BTC before Segwit, simple logic for you, more users = more transactions, the whole scenario would have been messy like right now. 4. That is beyond your grasp  "Every small step in the right direction counts." |
|
|
|
hey guys btcclicks.com gone scam? they deleted my acc with 2000 ref  i ve created the acc afew years ago and promoted my ref in more than 500 site what the fu** ?  Delete one zero from your referrals and we are equal at referring for BTCclicks. For more than three years, I never had any issue with them regarding payouts. This is their official thread, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=234732.0, mixed response, and I have good reasons to believe that account deletion/banning from their side happens only when you have stepped on their ToS. |
|
|
|
...
I signed up not too long ago with a VPN that allows me to choose from servers in quite a few countries. As I write, I am now connected to France (not my own country). I noticed at blockchain.info an ad popped up asking me if I would like to buy BTC with a credit/debit card. Alas, the transaction was declined, possibly because my debit card is not from the EU...
Does using a VPN allow one to access services like gambling sites or perhaps less picky BTC selling sites for debit cards?
Thanks mucho for any answers to the "newb-style" question.
VPN has its benefits, but in cryptosphere it is a bit tricky. You can access sites, register, enjoy the layout, and even gamble if it is a gambling site, see only a few gambling sites have some country specific restrictions, and you win a good amount, boom ID please, oh this guy/gal is in the restricted list, finished. Why bother about these few. EU is mucho a tax less continent. But hiding IP does mean the origin is also hideaway, debit cards have regulations, monitored, even though bitcoin is involved, you are stepping into a centralized zone. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
