Just curious what you think.

Can and/or should ETC stay as PoW, or switch to PoS when ETH does this.

My perosonal optinion is to stay PoW. But I don't know if there are any technical issues or problems preventing this.

“This issue has been discussed for several years,” he said. “I think that the very-rough consensus is that old coins should be destroyed before they are stolen to prevent disastrous monetary inflation. People joined Bitcoin with the understanding that coins would be permanently lost at some low rate, leading to long-term monetary deflation. Allowing lost coins to be recovered violates this assumption, and is a systemic security issue.”

https://news.bitcoin.com/theymos-bitcoins-satoshi-destroyed/



In my view, the moment Bitcoin devs or anyone start dictating what to do with bitcoin of others, censorship resistance of bitcoin will be lost. Satoshi would be proud for sure.

So you agree with thymos or not? Should the coins be destroyed or not?

I've never used Azure, so I dont know what are its use cases and benefits

Now Microsoft added coins such as Etherium, Monero (today), Radium, etc...

What exactly does it mean? What do they do with these technologies? What benefits do these cryptos in Azure provide for customers?

I understand that Microsfotfs acepts Bitcoin paiments, and adding other coins to Azure does not mean that they also accept, e.g., Monero to pay for services of Microsoft. So what Microsoft is getting out of it and what customers want to expect?

http://www.govcert.admin.ch/blog/19/armada-collective-is-back-extorting-financial-intuitions-in-switzerland

From: Armada Collective
Subject: DDOS ATTACK!!!
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 XX:XX:XX +0000

FORWARD THIS MAIL TO WHOEVER IS IMPORTANT IN YOUR COMPANY AND CAN MAKE DECISION!

We are Armada Collective.
http://www.govcert.admin.ch/blog/14/armada-collective-blackmails-swiss-hosting-providers

All your servers will be DDoS-ed starting Monday (March 14) if you
don't pay protection - 25 Bitcoins @
17j7onEtLgS2pd6qLekKQCteqTrnAFXZVS
If you don't pay by Monday, attack will start, price to stop will
increase to 50 BTC and will go up 20 BTC for every day of attack.

This is not a joke.
Our attacks are extremely powerful - sometimes over 1 Tbps per second.
So, no cheap protection will help.

Prevent it all with just 25 BTC @ 17j7onEtLgS2pd6qLekKQCteqTrnAFXZVS

Do not reply, we will not read. Pay and we will know its you. AND YOU
WILL NEVER AGAIN HEAR FROM US!
Bitcoin is anonymous, nobody will ever know you cooperated.

https://i.imgur.com/obKTFuL.png

For how long it will be like this. No one knows, but its still big achievement imo.

[a central bank to make transactions entirely, or partially, anonymous]

Bank of England looks into ‘centralised’ bitcoin alternative, RSCoin

https://thestack.com/cloud/2016/03/10/bank-of-england-looks-into-centralised-bitcoin-alternative-rscoin/

Referring to transparency of funds, Meiklejohn explained that an RSCoin ledger could be published publicly by a central bank. She added that the system’s design would also allow a central bank to make transactions entirely, or partially, anonymous.

Why Banks wound not be happy with fully transparent ledger? What are their afraid of? And why to centralized it? What's the point of centralized cryptocurrency then? They already have centralized system anyway currently.

Alex Petrov
‏@sysmannet Alex Petrov Retweeted cypherdoc
Answer: Content of Block 400590, High-fee spam attack/flooding of BTC, << 133 satoshi / byte

and more comments here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/48eg6y/alex_petrov_of_bitfury_highfee_spam/


I dont understand this. Many times previously ppl were saying that transactions with zero or ultra low fees are spam and need to be disregarded. Also it was said many times over, that if someone is complaining about transaction time, he/she should had used higher fee. Ok, this I understand.

But now, if there is many transaction with high fees, they are labeled spam!!! How come? So low or nil fees are spam, high fees are spam as well?  So what fees should ppl use? Medium fees only, if both high and low fees are considered spam?

I KNOW that solo mining on CPU is not efficient and from profitably point of view pointless.

But mining was always part of bitcoin, and even if its not profitable, for many users  can be satisfactory to support network by mining a little bit, when they you use the wallet.

For new users, it could give also some psychological idea that they actually contribute to the security of the network with a sight chance still finding a block.

There is an intresting thread on r/btc:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/47zfzt/blockstream_is_now_controlled_by_the_bilderberg/

Blockstream is now controlled by the Bilderberg Group - seriously! AXA Strategic Ventures, co-lead investor for Blockstream's $55 million financing round, is the investment arm of French insurance giant AXA Group - whose CEO Henri de Castries has been *chairman* of the Bilderberg Group since 2012. (self.btc)
submitted 10 hours ago * by UndergroundNews


https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22axa+strategic+ventures%22+%22blockstream%22
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22axa+strategic+ventures%22+%22axa+group%22
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22axa+group%22+bilderberg+castries
http://www.wsj.com/articles/bitcoin-startup-blockstream-raises-55-million-in-funding-round-1454518655
Bitcoin Startup Blockstream Raises $55 Million in Funding Round
Horizons Ventures and AXA Strategic Ventures are among the investors in the company, which is developing blockchain technology.
Blockstream, a bitcoin-focused startup founded by some of the industry’s most high-profile developers, raised $55 million in one of the largest funding rounds in the history of the virtual currency.
Investors including Horizons Ventures, Tokyo-based Digital Garage and AXA Strategic Ventures, the investment arm of insurance giant AXA SA, contributed to the funding. ...
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/blockstream-announces-55-million-series-140000240.html
Blockstream Announces $55 Million Series A Investment Bringing Total Capital Raised to $76 Million
SILICON VALLEY, Calif., Feb. 3, 2016 / PRNewsWire
The round is being led by Horizons Ventures, AXA Strategic Ventures, and Digital Garage, with participation from existing investors including AME Cloud Ventures, Blockchain Capital, Future\Perfect Ventures, Khosla Ventures, Mosaic Ventures, and Seven Seas Venture Partners.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group
Bilderberg Group - Chairman of the Steering Committee: Henri de Castries (since 2012)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group#Criticism
Partly because of its working methods to ensure strict privacy, the Bilderberg Group has been criticised for its lack of transparency and accountability.
Due to its privacy, Bilderberg has been accused of conspiracies.
This outlook has been popular on both extremes of the political spectrum, even if they disagree about the exact nature of the group's intentions.
Some on the left accuse the Bilderberg group of conspiring to impose capitalist domination, while some on the right have accused the group of conspiring to impose a world government and planned economy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Bilderberg_Conference
Henri de Castries, Chairman, Bilderberg Meetings; Chairman and CEO, AXA Group
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group#Chairmen_of_the_steering_committee
Chairmen of the steering committee
Prince Bernhard of Lippe-Biesterfeld (1954–75)
Alec Douglas-Home, Baron Home of the Hirsel (1977–80)
Walter Scheel (1981–85)
Eric Roll, Baron Roll of Ipsden (1986–89)
Peter Carington, 6th Baron Carrington (1990–98)
Étienne Davignon, Viscount Davignon (1999–2011)
Henri de Castries (since 2012)
http://uk.businessinsider.com/list-of-ceos-and-politicians-invited-to-2015-bilderberg-conference-in-austria-2015-6
Here are all the CEOs and politicians going to the top secret Bilderberg Conference this week (Jun. 10, 2015)
Here's the full list:
Henri de Castries, AXA Group, Chairman and CEO
...
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/aug/07/axa-boss-henri-de-castries-on-coal-do-you-really-want-to-be-the-last-investor
Henri de Castries might just be the most powerful man in the world. He is chief executive and chairman of one of the world’s biggest insurers, Axa, and a member of France’s illustrious noble house of Castries. But De Castries is also chairman of the Bilderberg group, a collection of political and business leaders from Europe and North America that meets in private every year to debate “megatrends and major issues facing the world” – or which is secretly running the world if you are a conspiracy theorist.

I just wonder about opinions on bitcointalk. Is this theory total bs, or there might be some true to it, and subsequently, should we worry about Bitcoin future?

xmr rose quickly, and even quicker today.

When eth did same recently, many said it is just a scam, pump a dump thing to get noobs to spend their btc to eth pumpers.

What about xmr current sudden rise? Are ppl starting to see its real value, or its just pumping and dumping season for xmr now?

What are your opinions?

Just wonder if anyone knows what's happening with eth? Did I miss any major news or something?
It's keep going up and up.

I was recently reading this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/43pq1z/i_didnt_realize_how_bad_it_is_blockstream_has_9/?ref=search_posts

And it seems scary that Bitcoin Core development is driven by a single company. With news that this company got $55 mil founding more, I worry they will be doing more to please and make profits for themselfs and investors, rather than what's good for Bitcoin's community.

When did Bitcoin go from being free and community driven development with volunteers fighting against current financial systems and companies, into de-facto companies driven project with primary goal of fast financial gains?

In a recent reddit posts it was written:

"Greg Maxwell admits the main reason for the block size limit is to force a fee market. Not because of bandwidth, transmission rates, orphaning, but because otherwise transactions would be 'too cheap'."

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/42hl7g/greg_maxwell_admits_the_main_reason_for_the_block/

This suggest that block reward is not enough, or that miners are too greedy and they want to double dip, i.e., profit from block rewards and from transaction fees.

So how much transaction fees are "too cheap" for miners?

The resolution of the Bitcoin experiment
https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7#.qokjwtupk

Why we have Bitcoin Ultimate, XT, Classic? What does it mean for normal bitcoin? Is very confusing.

Are they compatible with each other, i.e, can I switch from normal Bitcoin to XT or to Classic and keep my current bitcoins?

Assume every change can be done and feature added without any drama like with recent block size, and that it would not require hard-fork (even if it would).

As one can guess based on my signature, I would like to see more privacy features added to bitcoin. Also shorter confirmation time (e.g. 2 min) would be good.

What about you?

I read this interesting article: Can You Really 'Know' a Customer Who Uses Bitcoin?
Penny Crosman
http://www.americanbanker.com/news/bank-technology/can-you-really-know-a-customer-who-uses-bitcoin-1078095-1.html

They write in one point:

The very existence of these startups raises questions about whether bitcoin users' privacy can be protected as banks try to comply with regulations that require them to understand their customers.

Andresen said that bitcoin privacy is very complicated before: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-06/06/bitcoin-retail

"Bitcoin transaction privacy is really complicated," he says. "If you want to be sure that your transactions are going to be private, then you probably need to hire a cryptography PhD to analyse your system."

"It's definitely a concern, and it's definitely part of the reason I say that Bitcoin is an experiment," Andresen adds.

So in light of more and more startups trying to analyze blockchain, are you worried about your transactions being public and available anyone to study, which eventually could lead to de-anonymization: http://allcoinsnews.com/2015/11/30/potential-for-bitcoin-and-blockchains-to-become-de-anonymized/

I was reading this new article:
Dark markets: Seeking anonymity in Bitcoin
http://www.computerworld.co.nz/article/589727/dark-markets-seeking-anonymity-bitcoin/

Few quotes:

“True anonymity in Bitcoin is only a myth, currently,” says Vijay Michalik, Research Analyst for Digital Transformation, Frost & Sullivan.

Michalik believes that blockchain analysis, as a relatively new market sector within Bitcoin, demonstrates the weakness of pseudonymity.

For Michalik however, true financial privacy doesn't exist on the Bitcoin blockchain.

“Without a redesign, this should be a serious concern,” Michalik adds.

“In this case, Bitcoin is a worse option than traditional finance channels.”

Off course one can use mixers or jointmarket to increase ones anonymity. They all charge a "small" fee for their service. What will happen when bitcoin introduces zerocash or CT, and become truly anonymous? Will they become obsolete?

I was just reading this article:
Anonymity Recognized as Serious Problem with Bitcoin
https://coinreport.net/anonymity-recognized-serious-problem-bitcoin/

It says, among other things:

some fear anonymity might be the issue that truly threatens bitcoin’s future

Regarding anonymity, Bernanke explained it’s a “bug” in that it allows bitcoin to be the vehicle for illicit transactions. He suspects government oversight will be a result of this, and could reduce the appeal of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.

I wonder why so many people worry about this? It is rather known fact that bitcoin is not anonymous, but only pseudo-anonymous (http://www.bitcoinisnotanonymous.com/). And what will happen with Bitcoin if CT or Zerocoin or some other technology will be incorporated to bitcoin, to make it truly anonymous?

Here it says that "Fungibility":

The state of being interchangeable. For example, money has fungibility because there is no difference between one dollar and another dollar. Likewise, stocks of the same type in the same company and commodities of the same quality are generally fungible. On the other hand, assets like land or baseball cards are not fungible because each unit has unique qualities that add or subtract value.

This question is based on this post in which it says that Monero is fungible and it suggests such fungibility is good. But why would a person want this in a crypto coin? I'm not a finance expert so I dont know, why should I care (or care not) about fungibility? Are there any real life examples with cyrtopcurrencies in which such future would be desired? And which other coins have this "future" or "characteristics".