Do you deny that Segwit improves and makes Bitcoin more secure and robust?
Do you assert that SegWit makes Bitcoin more secure? If so, how? Do you assert that SegWit makes Bitcoin more robust? If so, how? Do you realize that after SegWit, miners may collude to roll back to non-SegWit? Do you realize that every previous SegWit then becomes a real 'anyone can spend' transaction? Do you realize that if this is done, the colluding miners may claim the value stored in these 'anyone can spend' transactions? Do you agree that this rollback/theft may be an incentive for miners to act counter to the intentions of the rest of the Bitcoin participants (whether or not sufficient to entice them to do so)? Are you at all concerned about this possibility? I will message someone else to answer you to technically explain. ...but I was asking you. You see, when you call in the reinforcements, instead of answering in your own words, it leaves the impression that you may have not actually thought through your position, but are merely repeating a position you have heard advocated by others. You seem to be advocating that SegWit it would make bitcoin both more secure and more robust. Leaving the more complex questions aside for the moment, I would like you to explain to me first what these terms mean to you, and second how you believe SegWit accomplishes these goals. Fair? That is fair, yes. But I humbly admit that I am not technically adept and I am not qualified to give you a good rebuttal. I have not mined Bitcoin and I am not a coder. But I am learning a lot and I will do my own due dilligence before I can reply which will take time. Fair? |
|
|
|
All of them are really good and it matters on your preference on what platforms would you like to trade since i think that selection is similar to each others but the thing who is different is the real time movements on each trades. But for me i would love to go to crypto tradings since that is my first area where i learn and earn more moneys from my risky trades and yet continously earning by researching the marketcap and threads outhere.
Cryptocurrency trading has a lower obstacle for access. It is very easy to enter. You can start by buying Bitcoin from localbitcoins.com and send your coins to an exchange and start trading. In trading stocks there are lots of requirements that you need to do and to pass with the broker before you can open an account to a broker. |
|
|
|
Yes and I would like to add that the cause of this is network spamming. There is someone out there who is constantly spamming and flooding the mempool to slow Bitcoin transactions down. Some say it is Roger Ver the others say it is Core's doing. Whoever it is I can imagine him doing the evil villain laugh everytime he starts spamming. Core people want to keep the status quo with 1MB blocks, spam the network would work against them The big blockers claim the opposite. It is Core doing all the spamming because they want more attention on the scaling debate and the need for Segwit activation and offchain scaling. That is a valid point but the same could also be said with BU. They also have interests in scaling Bitcoin but doing it onchain. The worse thing is the want to hard fork the network away from Core. I have no problems with that only if the BU developers have proven to create better code and are better developers than Core. |
|
|
|
this may be a start though! i wouldn't get my hopes up but i do believe that after what Japanese did and accepted bitcoin as a legal way of payment many countries have become softer towards bitcoin and a couple of them even are considering doing the same. so it wouldn't be such a strange thing if US finally did that someday too.
Call me skeptical but as a rule of thumb it should be safer not to attach your real identity to your Bitcoins or your Bitcoin wallet. It goes against the anonymous or pseudonymous nature of the cryptocurrency. All the beauty and brilliance of the design is gone the moment you surrender your real identity just because the US government requires you to do so. |
|
|
|
One possible answer to this is, that they are using this to flag Bitcoin owners. You can expect them to look more closely at you the moment when you reveal that you are a Crypto currency user. You apply for a VISA and you pay for the application with Bitcoin and you are immediately added to "The List"
At this stage, they do not have a way to determine who is and who is not Crypto currency users. ^easy^
Yes it is a trap. The US government is thinking of cunning ways to collect Bitcoin and mark you as a potential enemy of the state at the same time. I cannot see how the OP is getting excited about this. We partially started to become involved in Bitcoin because we do not believe in the government did we not? |
|
|
|
Yes and I would like to add that the cause of this is network spamming. There is someone out there who is constantly spamming and flooding the mempool to slow Bitcoin transactions down. Some say it is Roger Ver the others say it is Core's doing. Whoever it is I can imagine him doing the evil villain laugh everytime he starts spamming. |
|
|
|
Assuming that all the things you are posting here are true, this is not a good sign for Poloniex and I think there is really a big problem on their side that must be addressed as soon as possible. I would not wonder if soon they would experience migration of their clients to other exchange. Poloniex has already a good following and in fact many of my friends are using Poloniex. All of these are happening at the same time that the site is kept on fighting many attacks.
I have read the same problems over and over about Poloniex. I have not used them because I do not trade with altcoins but that is a sign that the exchange might have scaling problems of its own. They have broken the record in terms of volume and the more traders use them the more the bugs and glitches appear. It would be a good decision to stay away from them and trade somewhere else. If what's been quoted by the Op is true, then Poloniex should solve the issue at the earliest to have the reputation of their services. Every exchange website encounter such technical issues which gets solved in a short. But here this has taken more time and yet now Op haven't got any solution. In my view poloniex is a trusted platform for trading and lending services. Soon it will make everything perfect. The same was said of MtGox years ago. There was also Roger Ver who vouched for the exchange and said that it was solvent. A few months later it was it was exposed as illiquid and cannot pay back their customers. I am not saying that Poloniex is insolvent but you should not always believe what they tell you. Keep your Bitcoins in a wallet you control. |
|
|
|
Based on my experience, during the time that I don't know yet about cryptocurrency, I am investing at stock market, the return is not that good, it is so risky as well since you don't have any assurance that you will earn, it is just a matter of trust but investing in a cryptocurrency is a lot more profitable and I can predict its price, just hold it and for sure you will earn.
What kind of stocks do you trade and in what country is the stock exchange that you use is located? I want to know what are the key differences between cryptocurrency trading and stock trading and how can you make profit from both despite these differences? |
|
|
|
Malleability has never been an issue except to people who imagined it to be one. Just wait for a confirmation or two.
Yes I am aware that it is not really that big of an issue. But as an improvement for the protocol it will be always good for the longterm. Even if it was a problem, can you give a technical explanation why SegWit is required to address malleability double spends???
Segwit is required to open the network for other technologies to be developed on the network. Do you deny that Segwit improves and makes Bitcoin more secure and robust? Why would you want to add unnecessay software? Because Segwit is an improvement for Bitcoin making it more secure and robust. It is making the protocol open to technologies that will help make it scale and help make it better. Technologies like Schnorr signatures that will help in Bitcoin's scalability, efficiency and privacy. We get all that in the safety of a soft fork. Do you deny that Segwit will improves and makes Bitcoin more secure and robust? Do you deny that Segwit improves and makes Bitcoin more secure and robust?
Do you assert that SegWit makes Bitcoin more secure? If so, how? Do you assert that SegWit makes Bitcoin more robust? If so, how? Do you realize that after SegWit, miners may collude to roll back to non-SegWit? Do you realize that every previous SegWit then becomes a real 'anyone can spend' transaction? Do you realize that if this is done, the colluding miners may claim the value stored in these 'anyone can spend' transactions? Do you agree that this rollback/theft may be an incentive for miners to act counter to the intentions of the rest of the Bitcoin participants (whether or not sufficient to entice them to do so)? Are you at all concerned about this possibility? I will message someone else to answer you to technically explain. |
|
|
|
Is that really the source of all the excitement about Japan? That article is based on what one analyst "believes". There are no facts and no numbers backing up his claim and yet I see everyone here trying to repeat what is said over and over again like it was really true. |
|
|
|
China has always been a very big market, even without all the fake volume they are still big. with a huge population and a lot of people who are interested in bitcoin and also trading they will always be big.
now that their major exchanges are closed a big part of bitcoin demand is out of it in my opinion and if they come back in June there will surely be a big rally for bitcoin. even if it is only partly coming back with much smaller volume.
But also note that China has always been the first big dumpers of Bitcoin everytime there is a meaningful rise in price. They want to be first to initiate the price drop so again they would be the first to catch the low prices of BTC. I am happier if they were not around. |
|
|
|
Assuming that all the things you are posting here are true, this is not a good sign for Poloniex and I think there is really a big problem on their side that must be addressed as soon as possible. I would not wonder if soon they would experience migration of their clients to other exchange. Poloniex has already a good following and in fact many of my friends are using Poloniex. All of these are happening at the same time that the site is kept on fighting many attacks.
I have read the same problems over and over about Poloniex. I have not used them because I do not trade with altcoins but that is a sign that the exchange might have scaling problems of its own. They have broken the record in terms of volume and the more traders use them the more the bugs and glitches appear. It would be a good decision to stay away from them and trade somewhere else. |
|
|
|
For in my opinion, trading cryptocurrencies is better. I can trade in cryptocurrency as low 50,000 satoshi to start with. Also, I can trade worldwide in cryptocurrency. It is very convenient and so easy to transact and even transfer to our local exchange.
That is true. You can start a very low capital in altcoin trading which is very awesome unlike the rest on the choices that you need a certain amount of money just to start a money and also there is a higher risk of getting a loss from those choices but in crypto trading you can have a higher chance because their market seems getting increase on its value just after a few weeks. The convenience alone would be enough for an ordinary user to choose cryptocurrencies over forex, stocks or commodities. I have not experience trading altcoins yet but I have been holding Bitcoins for over 1 year now and I could really imagine how easy it would be to move your coins around from exchange to exchange without dealing with banks. |
|
|
|
Malleability has never been an issue except to people who imagined it to be one. Just wait for a confirmation or two.
Yes I am aware that it is not really that big of an issue. But as an improvement for the protocol it will be always good for the longterm. Even if it was a problem, can you give a technical explanation why SegWit is required to address malleability double spends???
Segwit is required to open the network for other technologies to be developed on the network. Do you deny that Segwit improves and makes Bitcoin more secure and robust? |
|
|
|
I keep asking where the information about Japan gaining major volume of Bitcoin interest but I do not have one reply from any of the people here. Poloniex, which is an American exchange still has the majority of volume in Bitcoin trading as shown in this link http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin/#markets |
|
|
|
I don't believe there will be a fork, I think one way or the other consensus will be reached. It will take a long time and it will be long overdue to fix the scaling issues experienced now but it will happen eventually.
I dont think we have "a long time". I think it might already be holding the price rise back. If you can't see evidence of people getting frustrated, you're not paying attention. Core needs to remember: The customer is always right. The customer is always right? Who is the customer here? The users, the node operators or the merchants? Maybe it is the miners who should remember that the customer is always right because they decide if we activate Segwit or hard fork to BU. Plus your "customer is always right" analysis is wrong. Core is not running a shop here. They are developing the Bitcoin network. Why should they listen to you. You can speak up by running a node. |
|
|
|
Am considering going into trading Stock or Gold/Silver but don't know how it's done. Am into Altcoin Trading, so far so good except that it fluctuates dangerously. I need to try other...
Is stock as profitable? I need your opinion.
I am starting to think the path to get rich quick is investing early in ICOs. Study all the ICOs in the past and look where most of them are now. I have been studying altcoins this past week because I will invest in my first cryptocurrency outside of Bitcoin. I have found that one of the most successful early ICOs is NEM. |
|
|
|
buyers will come in at 1100-1200 on next dip. you will never again get the chance to buy a bitcoin for under 1k.
Yep, apart from future major negative news, sub-1000 is really gone... as anyone would buy huge quantity already when price is close to 1200. No chance it will go lower. Only negative happening that has the potential to crash the price back to sub $1000 levels, is if the BU gangsters decide to initiate a fork at the 51% mark. But they aren't that stupid to jeopardize their entire operations at such a marginal network majority. I remember that Jihan Wu even threatened to do so, but of course, it's just an empty threat. I won't discard seeing sub $1000 levels again, but it's more and more becoming an unlikely thing. If he makes irresponsible statements like those to threaten everyone then it a POW upgrade should be developed and be ready for deployment. Miners should serve the network, not control and threaten it. If the miners cannot act responsibly then it is time to change them. |
|
|
|
All Core vs except Luke JR I think which actually wants to make the blocksize smaller, want to eventually make the blocksize higher.
That is correct. However, BU & their fanatics are not concerned with whether their "teachings" are related to reality/the truth or not. 
 I think the biggest problems anti-Core guys have is that they don't trust them. Core hasn't said a specific date where this blocksize increase would happen, I think they will not stop complaining u ntil Core gives a clear date to raise the blocksize after the segwit activation, but I think if Core did that, they would still complain and don't trust them. They just hate them now no matter what they do. It is not about the hate but its all about the monopoly. Both parties wanted to monopolize the bitcoin mining industry and if they will succeed they will have total control over the production of bitcoin. Thus it will mean huge profit from them and it could mean higher fees for us. What we need is the current bitcoin without bitcoin unlimited and without segwit. Bitcoin is good as it is. Original Bitcoin did NOT have a blocksize cap. We clearly need to remove it. It never should have been added. Just because Satoshi said and did this or said that does not mean his word is law or he is correct all of the time. Did he not put the 1mb limit? Removing it now would centralize mining and make the blockchain unmmanageably very large. Bitcoin had unused block capacity for years for its entire history until just recently when all blocks started being full. This isn't difficult to understand.
You want it to scale, yes many people do. Why not fix the malleability issues first with Segwit and then make it scale through offchain means? |
|
|
|
I have theory but it is just theory that it can be some speculative capital,sometimes it is possible to see that on emerging countrys stocks,thay are coming pumping indexes and going away,it can be also related to very fast growning ICO tokens markes,some ICO are generating heavy milions of dollars
You only thought about this now? You have been in the forum for a long time, and it is very funny that you have not noticed it. Bitcoin itself is also manipulated by whales and speculative investors if you did not notice. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
