the only thing bad about bitcoin is the lack of development. the developers want people to think bitcoin is bad because they have $$millions involved in promoting other networks Who is promoting other networks? the same developers shouting blockchains cant scale and LN is the future. i say if a bitcoin dev cant develop bitcoin. then they need to move out of bitcoin contributing and move into LN contributing full time. and to fully stop putting code into bitcoin that is only being added to make bitcoin compatible with alternative networks bitcoin devs should be bitcoin innovation devs. not alternative network promoters and converters Pointing out the scaling limitations of blockchains = promoting other networks? In truth, blockchains don't scale well. Adding exponentially more throughput to the mainchain would encourage mining centralization to sidestep latency problems (or otherwise cause high orphan rates and regular unintentional forking) and would discourage full node operation due to bandwidth requirements. Sharding is one approach to solving this problem. Offchain payment channels are another. Tree chains are another. Why do you think so many people are working on ways to achieve exponential scale? Because blockchains can't do it. They scale linearly, which is extremely limiting. The Core developers have done a great job optimizing for better scale, but there's only so much they can do. |
|
|
|
Don't forget to pay your capital gains on that lol. Seriously though, would buying a cup of coffee worth the paperwork. It's not that complicated because you're not paying with Bitcoin directly. You'd sell BTC for USD on Bakkt. That's a taxable event, as with a sale on any other exchange. The cups of coffee you buy out of your USD balance aren't taxable in terms of capital gains. Will they use a payment tool that requires kyc?
I'm assuming this is all through Bakkt, and I think Bakkt will require KYC. |
|
|
|
We know the advantages of decentralized however what are the disadvantages of the Decentralized system that we should take note of while using this technology?
The redundancy required to make Bitcoin decentralized also makes it quite inefficient when compared to centralized databases. Many distributed nodes need to propagate and store the same data. This entails large bandwidth and storage costs for each node, which wouldn't be necessary in a centralized system. |
|
|
|
The most recent development is that this merchant is not using SegWit addresses and this is why it is taking this long. I was sending from my SegWit addresses to their legacy address and for some reason it took 23 to 25 minutes to confirm the transaction. Why do you think that? It may have been that there wasn't a block mined in that time frame, or that your fee wasn't high enough. Or it may have been a fluke based on how a mining pool orders transactions. It shouldn't have to do with using (or not using) Segwit addresses. |
|
|
|
At the moment, cryptocurrency exchanges are only required to provide information on their clients to the NTA voluntarily. But the reforms that the government is seeking to carry out will give the tax body authority to demand such information from the exchanges. This information includes individual identification numbers, addresses and names.
Information Protection Concerns
However, to prevent abuse of the new measures the government will only allow the NTA to demand information on those believed to have made at least ten million yen from trading in cryptocurrencies. Additionally, the information will only be demanded if the NTA has evidence that a particular individual failed to disclose at least 50% of that income.
This sounds pretty awful. I'm curious how the tax authorities will find evidence that any individual failed to report 50% of their cryptocurrency trading income without getting that information from the exchanges. I suppose they could compel banking records, but I wonder what their original basis for investigation would be. |
|
|
|
The fee priority mechanism was just node policy. As I recall, miners had mostly all removed it from their nodes so it was eventually removed from the reference client. Developers aren't really in a position to force new fee policies on miners.
they forced segwit...................... No, they didn't. Miners activated Segwit. If miners were "forced" by anything, it was the threat of BIP 148, which was never part of the reference client. Many Core developers were opposed to merging the UASF -- on such a rushed timeline or at all -- and it never was. Miners made a conscious decision to activate Segwit to prevent a chain split with users enforcing BIP 148. Core nodes would have sided with majority hashpower either way. |
|
|
|
the only thing bad about bitcoin is the lack of development. the developers want people to think bitcoin is bad because they have $$millions involved in promoting other networks Who is promoting other networks? bitcoin lost its fee priority mechanism 4 years ago due to developers. and developers should have put in a new fe priority that does a better job. they didnt. The fee priority mechanism was just node policy. As I recall, miners had mostly all removed it from their nodes so it was eventually removed from the reference client. Developers aren't really in a position to force new fee policies on miners. |
|
|
|
Yes, I did contact them about implementing the Lightning Network, but they have not seen anyone asking for this, so they reckon if there are not a lot of people asking for it, then it is not worth the time and effort to implement it. <Also staff will also need additional training for it and that is costly>
I did ask them to increase the 10 minute confirmation window, but they say the volatility will eat into their profits, if the price goes down, like it is doing at the current moment.
They should probably use a payment processor to negate the volatility problem. Requiring a confirmation within 10 minutes is crazy -- even when block times are below 10 minutes on average, I've seen 2 hour gaps between blocks. It takes time to sign and broadcast the transaction too. This can't make for a good user experience... |
|
|
|
You get to have control over your funds, transactions are cheap, and no one can know how much money you have (financial privacy), etc. Most people would understand these things.
Why isn't this being promoted? Why is there no crypto lobby? Who would it be funded by? Bitcoin isn't like an ICO where a centralized team solicits funds for development and marketing. It's an open source project. Also, transactions may not always be cheap. Without significant block weight increases, we should expect fees to rise considerably over time. I think this was intentional since fees must replace block subsidy to continue incentivizing miners to secure Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
“Mining at a cost higher than the cost at which you can sell in the futures market destroys value. So, any rational investor — even one who strongly believes the price of bitcoin will rebound — has no incentive to mine if the cost of mining is higher than the future price and is better off buying in the futures market. Why would this matter? Mining costs aren't uniform and difficulty adjusts to unprofitable miners shutting down. And unlike gold, which can retain its value even if mining activity stops, bitcoin can have no value absent the mining activity that maintains the ledger of who owns it. Absent the mining activity, bitcoin is a just a set of encrypted numbers with no value.” Well that's a moot point since there's no sign that mining activity is stopping.  If gold mining activity stopped entirely, that would imply massive weakness in the gold market. Of course it wouldn't retain its value. This "research" is based on a misconception that hash drops cause price drops, but that's wrong, the correlation between hashpower and price is not that strong, there's a big room for flexibility.
Logically, hash rate should follow price, but it doesn't do so efficiently. More efficient (cost lowering) hardware is regularly coming online, and some miners will operate at a loss on a speculative basis. |
|
|
|
I have executed a transaction with BTC and I am now waiting for 6 hours and still have 0 confirmations.
Is the network jammed again for some reason? Or what is the deal with it?
It's just a period of congestion. At the moment, you need to pay 10-15 satoshis/byte to get confirmed in the next block. Congestion has also been exacerbated lately by drops in hash rate. Before the difficulty adjustment earlier today, blocks were being generated only once every 11-12 minutes. Less blocks = less confirmed transactions. There was a difficulty adjustment today which normalized block times, but hash rate has dropped again so blocks are only being generated once every 10.6 minutes instead of every 10 minutes. |
|
|
|
Controlling their own money? Being responsible for signing transactions? Keeping their wallet safe? God forbid. They're in love with the system, it's how they make their wealth. They want to trust someone else with their money. They want a custodian. Preferably, someone to tell them they have Bitcoin instead of storing their own access. An email and password to view some arbitrary balance, because that's what they're comfortable with.
I suppose we should have seen this coming. Aside from the physical gold bugs, that's what people trust -- numbers on a screen at their bank or broker's website. In the mass adoption scenario, I wonder what proportion of "holders" will actually hold the keys to their coins. It's a tad depressing to think about. State Street, one the largest institutional custodians on the planet, said there is no sense of urgency – at the moment, at least – from clients for the firm to move into safeguarding crypto assets. Speaking at the American Banker BlockFS conference in New York on Thursday, Jay Biancamano, State Street’s managing director for digital product development and innovation, acknowledged there is “a high level of interest”, however.
That's a big contrast from what BlackRock's CEO said over the summer. He said their clients have zero interest... |
|
|
|
It's not the end of bitcoin, because when the rigs ( take the s-9 as a base ), go for $10, people in china will buy them as space-heaters, and the accept the cost of electricity, and buy them for the added good of winning the lotto.
My fear is that new software will be deployed for mining only, and nobody will be running full servers to process transactions, thus BTC will be in deep shit, cuz the tx rate will go from bad to worse. That won't happen. Miners have strong incentive to maximize transaction fees, especially as the block subsidy drops to 6.25 BTC and so on. Rationally, they'll work to fit as much transaction data as they possibly can into every block. Remember an ASIC miner doesn't need a hard-disk ( full block chain ) it just needs to call home and get work and send back a hash that is led by 'N zeros'.
Now that running a full-node doesn't make you money because mining is dead, ...what's the point. Miners may not need an archival node, but they need to run a full node. If they skip verification of the previous block, they risk publishing invalid blocks on top. That's what happened here -- a very costly mistake! |
|
|
|
We see it every time Bitcoin goes to a new lower level.
Bitcoin "believers" will hurry to say "buy the dip" and "just wait it will come back"
Reality is that every dip is a new lower level - and after that comes another dip...and another.
That's only looking at the short-term. If you take into account all of Bitcoin's price history, what you're saying is patently false. Each dip ends higher than the last in a long-term upward trajectory. Your claim is only true if the price falls below $150-160. That was the bottom of the last correction. |
|
|
|
So what happens if the controllers of these addresses send a dribble to the Bitfinex or Binance cold wallets? Bitfinex or Binance -- if they want to comply with the sanctions -- would confiscate those tainted outputs and notify OFAC. They have instructions for this: Once it has been determined that your institution is holding digital currency that is required to be blocked pursuant to OFAC’s regulations, you must ensure that access to that digital currency is denied to the blocked person and that your institution complies with OFAC regulations related to blocked assets. Institutions may choose, for example, to block each digital currency wallet associated with the digital currency addresses that OFAC has identified as being associated with blocked persons, or opt to use its own wallet to consolidate wallets that contain the blocked digital currency (similar to an omnibus account) titled, for example, “Blocked SDN Digital Currency.” Each of these methods is satisfactory, so long as there is an audit trail that will allow the digital currency to be unblocked only when the legal prohibition requiring the blocking of the digital currency ceases to apply. Blocked digital currency must be reported to OFAC within 10 business days. This is why I can't see how blacklisting will ever work. There's no way of stopping the pollution of 'virgin' addresses and anyone who is blacklisted will be motivated to spread their contagion far and wide until it's pointless. Reading through that FAQ, it doesn't seem like this would taint an exchange's wallets. They just need to isolate the tainted outputs and stick them in a quarantined wallet. |
|
|
|
My first question is, what was Satoshi's last post in P2P Foundation's forum before posting the word nour? Was it I am not Dorian?
Also, how high is the possibility that his account in the P2P Foundation is hacked? Very high. It seems pretty obvious to me. I think it was compromised when the Dorian post was made, probably via the compromised satoshin@gmx.com email account. There was a lot of speculation about this back in 2014. See here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=775174.0 |
|
|
|
While cryptocurrency exchanges can and do block accounts linked to certain addresses, the Bitcoin protocol remains immune from such interference. Exchanges freeze accounts on a regular basis. That's all this is about. The government isn't trying to interfere with the protocol. OFAC is just telling exchanges and money transmitters to confiscate funds under their control that are tainted by those addresses. This isn't so different from OFAC publishing name identifiers so that banks know to block associated funds. |
|
|
|
|
What makes it a "2.0" futures contract? Are there any details about the contract specs? I don't see anything in the article indicating how it would differ from offerings already on the market. It sounds like VanEck is just trying to stir up hype, especially since all they can say about the ETF is "soon."
|
|
|
|
I want to make it clear that no matter how stupid this action would look to us, announcing secondary sanctions against bitcoin addresses, it is an evidence of the war that is coming and bitcoin community is barely prepared for. Well may be not a complete war but certainly a major battle like what Satoshi would probably say. Maybe, but if anything, it seems more indicative of an incoming war against exchanges and MSBs who don't fully comply with AML/KYC laws. They didn't announce secondary sanctions against Bitcoin addresses. They just identified addresses associated with individuals they've deemed Specially Designated Nationals (SDNs) because the individuals are high volume Bitcoin exchangers and US persons are prohibited from dealing with them. They expect exchanges to block funds tainted by those addresses: While OFAC routinely provides identifiers for designated persons, today’s action marks the first time OFAC is publicly attributing digital currency addresses to designated individuals. Like traditional identifiers, these digital currency addresses should assist those in the compliance and digital currency communities in identifying transactions and funds that must be blocked and investigating any connections to these addresses. |
|
|
|
Who says BTC doesn't have institutional money?? Big money betting is ongoing in the crypto market at this current situation and majority of that funds come from institutions. Probably well known companies don't invest in bitcoin openly due to regulatory issues, that's why we are unable to take the names, but that certainly doesn't prove that institutions don't invest in here! They do, just not openly!
Indeed, I think there are spinoff/shell companies that keep cryptocurrency positions off the books of major investment banks. Still, I don't think they have major exposure. I think cryptocurrency trading is still a very small part of any Wall Street institution's business. Anyway, regarding the OP's point, increased institutional adoption is certainly one way that prices could recover but it's not necessary. Growing adoption by individual users and retail investors will drive the price up just the same. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
