Yah, I got confused for a second as why would they be trading it already. I just realized that they are just IOU's probably so withdrawals can't be made until the official release. I think exchanges are doing this for profits again, letting people ride the hype train again even though theres nothing really. The devs are on finishing phase so i doubt they'll back out particularly when the snapshot has been secured. I mean we all know they're gonna dump their private premines lool. Yeah, they're just IOUs at this point. But I would laugh so hard if the coin never launched and people started filing lawsuits against Bitfinex for letting them buy a coin that doesn't exist and has no network.  It's pretty obvious that most people didn't understand that only a snapshot had occurred. I think they are fully intent on launching, but it's surprising how incompetent the developers seem. Now that the market has shown that it values the coin (albeit lower than BCH for now), I would think some competent developers would step up and grab the bounty for replay protection. Then again, that bounty should have been much bigger, considering how big the pre-mine is rumored to be. |
|
|
|
Now, I have my BTC in a paper wallet before BTG Fork, plus some in Jaxx after the BTG fork.
Still couldn’t find a way to claim my BTG... anybody knows howto? There is still no Bitcoin Gold network. It's really weird that exchanges like Bitfinex are treating it as if BTG is a real coin as opposed to a coin split contract or futures contract. The code is broken, there is no replay protection, and there is no network. BTG literally doesn't exist. So, wallet software will not allow you to claim any...this is correct. For the next fork B2X, should I move my latest BTC from Jaxx to paper wallet before the B2X fork?
How to claim the B2X?
Regarding the fork, there is no reason to move BTC from Jaxx to a paper wallet. You control your private keys on Jaxx, so you should have access to both your BTC and B2X after the fork. Claiming the B2X is a bit tricky because there is no replay protection. I would wait until some good tutorials emerge on how to separate the BTC from B2X. If you're not careful, you might lose BTC in the process. |
|
|
|
i used to run core, but im worried about the 2x fork and what that means
will the 2x take over existing BTC chain? or will there be separate chain for the 2x fork?
There's always a separate chain when a hard fork occurs. This is why there is always so much concern about splitting the network. Because, by definition, hard forks split the network. If you have a highly centralized system, where participants basically change consensus rules on a few days notice if Vitalik Buterin says so, hard forking without splitting the network is possible. Not so easy in Bitcoin, especially on a 3-month timeline. Most people don't upgrade their nodes on that timeline, and we can see by observing the network that the vast majority of reachable nodes are not running 2x software. |
|
|
|
This is inspired by an article that proposes that Bitcoin is an easy target for big banks and the Fed because it's the first and (so far) most successful cryptocurrency. It's highly probable that a disorderly collapse of Bitcoin could be harmful to cryptocurrencies as a whole, although the blockchain is likely to survive with the backing of corporations like IBM. But if it becomes obvious that Bitcoin is starting to get backed into a corner, is it better for Bitcoin to go out swinging or for Bitcoin to have some form of orderly demise so that there's no longer a large single target for governments and big financial institutions to aim at? In the short term, it would definitely crush trust in cryptocurrencies. But it really depends on the nature of the flaw and the reaction of the community, even if the markets plummet in short term panic. If, for example, there were an existential flaw found in Bitcoin that made its cryptography breakable, the markets would collapse and investors would be scared off. I'm sure a fix (a hard fork that changed the signature curve or POW algorithm) would be released. The question is, would the community largely fork to the new system? Would they largely sell their bitcoins and go home? The reaction of users will inform the large investment community. It would be interesting to watch, that's for sure. If Bitcoin successfully hard forked in that scenario, it would be very bullish for the long term. I don't really see a scenario where Bitcoin will "die" without it being forked, in any case. |
|
|
|
As i've read, the bitcoin gold fork snapshot will happen on block 491407.
What will happen if I send my bitcoin from address A to address B at lets say block 491405. Which address will get credited with bitcoin gold?
The Bitcoin Gold snapshot includes all confirmed transactions as of height 491407. That means that if the transaction still hasn't been included in a block by that block height, the BTG will be credited to Address A. Even though this airdrop seems like a scam to me (in the sense that the developers are just pre-mining money into their pockets), it could be worth something. So now that we're only 13 blocks away from the snapshot, I'm not moving any coins until it's done. |
|
|
|
Didn't expect all this congestion tonight! Can you help me get this transaction confirmed? 8f84f35871af184ff52a770c3dd502eb51d79143d037e15ef84cd450aa70c0ee Muchos gracias.  |
|
|
|
so (segwit 1x) ? has already been activated without an hardfork? so the bitcoin chain can already handle more transactions for now? Even if segwit2x will be ignored, the segwit1x will not be disabled? and segwit1x is the one that org dev team is supporting and is working right now?
Yeah, Segwit activation was the big drama in July, with BIP148 threatening a chain split if Segwit didn't lock in. Nothing can "disable" the original (1x) blockchain unless the miners 51% attack it to prevent any transactions from being confirmed. However, if most of the hash power leaves, it can take a very long time to readjust difficulty -- block time and confirmation time can be very long, and fees could be high. Not disabled, but there would be a lot of upset users, some of whom might be clamoring for a POW or difficulty algorithm change. |
|
|
|
Just ignore it and do your thing, there might be a mild delay one day but that is the worst of it. These are just a bunch of drama queens and the fact that they whine about it makes it more visible. It will be fine and another new ass coin will pop out with overwhelming people behind it for no reason other than talk. Rumor built coins never last forever.
I'm guessing it will fail, but there is a slight chance that the Bitcoin chain could become "stuck" with extremely slow confirmation times and prohibitive fees due to long block times. In that case, there will have to be a POW change or at least a difficulty algorithm change that will require a hard fork. Unfortunately, this isn't like 2013 where the community was quite unified. Now, the community is fractured and I'm not sure there would be widespread agreement on a POW hard fork. I fear that a lot of users would opt for the 2X chain in such a situation. Its the "stuck" bit that worries me too and also the replay protection or lack of. Will it be the case though that we wont have any idea how much hash rate is on either side until after the fork. I am still confused how Ver is supporting 2x when he now claims that Bcash is the true bitcoin? It truly is sickening as btc hits new All time highs that they may shoot the golden goose Indeed, signalling is just that. It supposedly shows intent, but miners have no skin in the game until the fork has occurred. If the futures markets are accurate and B2X is only worth 0.15BTC a piece, then they will be losing a lot of money by mining it. Then again, it's hard to say if the market is properly pricing in the possibility of the "stuck" BTC blockchain, and if people truly believe the NYA signalling is accurate. I think the market believes that the fork is unlikely to happen since there is such lack of consensus. But the market is often wrong. I'll have my popcorn ready and my coins on ice when the fork happens next month. I'm also confused about the position of Ver, Wright and Jihan Wu. Supposedly Bitcoin.com and Bitmain are backing B2X, but they seem to be gung ho on Bitcoin Cash. Wright doesn't seem to support Segwit2x at all, or if he does, only to strengthen the position of BCH. |
|
|
|
So, question: My operating systems have all been patched (Windows 7SP1, 8 and 10). Does that mean that my PCs are safe to use normally, or am I still vulnerable because of the router?
If your PC is patched and your router is still vulnerable to this attack then it depends on which device initiates the handshake. One direction of your data stream can be decrypted (decrypted in terms of WPA2). If you are still encrypting your information with TLS (https) then you are completely safe. The KRACK attack puts you in a situation comparable with a free wifi hotspot in a public place. If your PC is clean and you are communicating via https (valid signatures from website provider) you are safe. Thanks for the info. If I understand correctly, anything sent over https is safe from this attack. So, that should cover all my bases -- my banking sites, email, crypto exchanges, charting sites and Bitcointalk are all sent over an https connection. If you live in that densely populated area then you will want to use a VPN to connect to any website you need to login to if you are using WiFi.
The primary risk to crypto users is MITM attacks when depositing crypto (and to a lesser extent withdrawing crypto- many businesses use certain precautions that make these attacks more difficult). Assuming you aren’t using a web wallet, your private keys are safe and any transaction you sign can’t be changed (although you can be tricked into sending to an incorrect address), and unconfirmed transactions are no longer safe to accept due to the fee market, and faking a block would be very expensive and would not be guaranteed to work.
You would recommend using a VPN to log into websites, even if our OS is patched and sent over https? Getting conflicting messages in this thread. Also, just to confirm, there's no way this attack can expose the private keys in our desktop wallet, right? Because nothing would be sent over Wi-fi except the signed transaction. I think... |
|
|
|
I have been working on this KRACK thing. My router has been patched and my linux systems have too. I have a router from AT&T and they seem pretty clueless. I called and asked a rep and he said the router was "already secure" despite no firmware updates, but I don't think he knew what he was talking about. He told me they don't even do firmware updates on routers. So, question: My operating systems have all been patched (Windows 7SP1, 8 and 10). Does that mean that my PCs are safe to use normally, or am I still vulnerable because of the router? It seems the likelihood of falling victim to this attack vector is low, but you can never be too careful... |
|
|
|
Banning US citizens is clearly in the Terms of use on WEX.nz for all to see. I would call that set in stone.
Speaking of banning US citizens, it seems that Bitfinex is terminating trading, deposits, and withdrawal functionality for U.S. individual customers by November 9, 2017.
I wonder how many other crypto exchanges will take that hard line?
Remember, though: BTC-e was indicted for operating an unlicensed money service business and fined $110 million for it. Bitfinex has been doing exactly that---with no MSB licenses in any of the 50 states---for something like 5 years. They are pulling out of the market now that law enforcement moved against BTC-e and regulators (like the CFTC and SEC) are ruling on ICO tokens. But we'll have to see if it's too little too late. I suspect that the various US agencies are months or even years into investigating Bitfinex. Pulling out of the market now doesn't erase past violations. This isn't the wild west anymore. It's possible that exchanges might get away with flouting the law in the early years. To do so now is suicide for any company that wants to remain in existence five years from now. The message to exchanges operating in the US is clear: get proper licensing, or get out. |
|
|
|
Please elaborate on it. Should i move my btc to some other wallet before the fork? Or is it safe to keep btc there?
Bcz i would like to keep bitcoins instead of the other coin.
Any help would be appreciated
Thanks
Technically, you have access to the private keys on Blockchain.info. So as long as you do not push any transactions using the Blockchain.info service, you cannot lose anything. You can log in, export your private keys and recovery seed, and import them into a desktop wallet like Core, which won't interact with the B2X chain. It's not totally clear to me what Blockchain plans to do at fork time. It sounds like they intend to temporarily support the minority hash rate coin for withdrawal/exchange, but I'm not sure how this will work in practice, especially if it is not very clear early on which chain will have the most cumulative work. |
|
|
|
Yes, there are actually 2 forks happening within the next month. Bitcoin Gold (BTG) should happen sometime next week and Bitcoin Segwit2x (B2X) should happen around mid-November.
All you have to do is make sure that you have your bitcoins in a wallet where you have access to your private keys at the time of those 2 forks, with a warning.
The warning is that you should be careful about moving your coins around the time of the fork, as they could lead to the other coins (BTG & B2X) being moved as well (you can imagine the coins as initially being "stuck together").
You should wait for news and announcements by the devs, stating that the chains are all stable, before moving your coins.
Is there still no word on replay protection from the Bitcoin Gold developers? Now that I think about it, is there even code that is publicly available yet? It seems like they are setting themselves up for failure with the lack of preparedness and publicity. Maybe that's the point -- get everyone sick and tired of these forks, which reinforces the notion that the legacy chain is the true Bitcoin, and that the hard forks are just altcoins. Roger Ver must be pretty worried right now... |
|
|
|
For Accounts valued at over $1000 USD we require additional information for proof of identity. A government identification and a selfie of you holding that identification where we can match your face and information. Please also write "Bittrex" and today's date on a piece of paper and hold it in the picture. Please make sure the text on your ID is readable in all photos. Note: This means we need all 3 things in 1 photo. You, your ID, and the paper with "Bittrex" and the date on it. Also we do not accept .pdf, .doc or zip files, or links to files. For expedited support and to streamline support agents verifying your account please consider performing Enhanced Verification by visiting https://www.bittrex.com, log into your account and click Settings on the top of the page. After a minimum of 24 hours has passed we will check your ticket and enable your account. In some circumstances we may require additional information. Thank you, Your Bittrex Support Team Follow us on Twitter @ https://twitter.com/BittrexExchange------------------------------------------- i did all thing that they want but it is disabled yet! why?  ?? At least now we see the official policy: a $1000 USD account requires government ID and selfie. That's completely insane. My Poloniex account has a $2000/day withdrawal limit, and that's just with name and email address. That certainly explains why it seems like everyone is having their accounts disabled at once: if you have more than ~ 0.18 BTC (or equivalent altcoins) in your account, they want your documents. Unbelievable! I'd like to see Shapeshift/Changelly support more coins. That's the upside of Bittrex--all the markets. No way I'm giving them my ID..... I'm glad my account was empty at the time. Two weeks ago, I'd have a few BTC locked up right now. |
|
|
|
What Dimon and Rogoff were stating is true: bitcoin is inviting tax evaders and money launderers due to its decentralized and pseudo-anonymous transactions. AML and KYC regulations should be present and followed by all exchanges, and it could be a way to prevent illicit activities from happening, but not preventing it completely. This may be the reason why China and the US are still stubborn about talks regarding bitcoin.
What do you think about Rogoff's statements? Is he making a good point or is he only making things look good for the USD?
I think Rogoff and Dimon make critical claims against Bitcoin that can just easily be made against the Dollar or Euro or Yen. I don't hear these "captains of industry" talking about how the Dollar's going to collapse because it's used to fund drug deals, illegal arms buys, terrorism, corruption, etc. I don't hear them talking about how the Dollar's a fraud because a centralized group of people can decide to make more whenever they want, thus reducing the value of every other unit of the currency already in the market. Their arguments are hollow. They aren't rooted in any fact-based analysis. Their arguments are less applicable to national currencies themselves. Rather, their arguments apply to cash, which has similar semi-anonymity and lack of centralized clearinghouse for transactions. I think the powers that be would generally love to eliminate cash, as well as cryptocurrency usage. The more intelligent among them probably realizes that they certainly can't eliminate the latter. But guys like Dimon and Rogoff are just in disbelief, I think, at the lack of controls put on cryptocurrencies as compared to legacy banking. They want governments to ban their usage and they think this will be enough to make them merely niche and hobbyist status. But they are probably wrong -- cryptocurrency satisfies the growing demand for exit from fiat currencies as storage of wealth. The demand is there. Banning it won't change that. |
|
|
|
My first question is what do companies mean when they say this "we will follow the chain with the most accumulated difficulty "
What difficulty are they referring to? Bitcoin uses proof-of-work to secure the blockchain. As more and more mining power joins the race to mine bitcoins, these proofs become increasingly difficult to solve. Hence the cumulative "difficulty" increases. What they are saying is this: Regardless of Bitcoin's consensus rules, they will follow whichever chain the majority of the hashrate builds. This means they might start following an altcoin chain and calling it "Bitcoin." Mass confusion and lost funds could easily ensue. And I need to know what does no replay protection mean?
It means you shouldn't transact for a while after the fork, unless you have no intention of trying to access your Segwit2x altcoins. If you try to transact on either chain after the fork without taking care to split your coins first, you could lose funds on the other chain. |
|
|
|
JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon said he is no longer going to discuss bitcoin after much his-publicized criticism of calling the cryptocurrency ‘a fraud’ last month. Noted bitcoin critic and Wall Street banker Jamie Dimon has been known to make dramatic statements about bitcoin, calling it a ‘fraud’ that will ‘get someone killed’. The chief executive of America’s largest bank by assets also said he would fire any employee trading bitcoin for being “stupid.”  Next time, share a source, so we know it's not just fake news or speculation: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/12/jamie-dimon-says-hes-not-going-to-talk-about-bitcoin-anymore.htmlAlgorithmic liquidity provider Blockswater filed a complaint with the Swedish authorities against Jamie Dimon last month after he made the "fraud" comments. I wonder if that had anything to do with this. I bet his lawyers probably told him to shut up to prevent any bad PR or legal problems for JP Morgan. He should have known better, in any case. |
|
|
|
Indeed, they are. Well, Bitcoin.com belongs to Roger so Roger = Jihan = Bitmain.
Not just that. Bitcoin.com announced that they will use 2x chain as a main chain, they will literally ignore the legacy chain.
You shouldn't listen to nor take anything that Roger Ver says seriously. He's a spoiled manchild. He recently said that Bitcoin Cash is the true Bitcoin, then change his statement to 2x a few days after. His statements are worthless, nor is he or this band of suits able to define Bitcoin. I also think that Roger's manchild nature is probably keeping him from listening to good legal counsel on this. If Bitcoin.com really ignores the legacy chain, changes the "BTC" ticker to an altcoin, and pawns these off on buyers / wallet users, Roger is in for a world of hurt when the lawsuits start rolling in. Bitcoin.com is brokering the exchange of goods and as a custodian, there are certain duties of care that must be taken from a legal perspective. Bixin also supports Segwit2x from the beginning.
That does not necessarily have to imply that they are a Bitmain proxy (and I sure hope that they are not). There's still time for them to pull out of the agreement. Bixin's policy towards Bitcoin Cash suggests that they are not a Bitmain proxy. But I suppose that could be a red herring. |
|
|
|
Well basically that means there will be a hard fork with a replay protection or something, for sure. Coinbase, Xapo and all the NYA signers not going to move S2X chain but wait and see if S2X going to survive or not.
If the majority hash power moves to S2X and Legacy Bitcoin blockchain gets weak due low hashrate, NYA companies will have a good reason to convince their users about why they will move to S2X "to protect users money". Unfortunately, that gives Bitmain a lot of power here. People are under the impression that Bitmain doesn't care about Segwit2x because of Bitcoin Cash. I disagree. The BCH fork was largely about pushing the ecosystem away from Core. This represents another opportunity for Bitmain to do that, by making the legacy chain the weaker chain. It's already widely believed that most of the Chinese pools (as well as BTC.com) are just Bitmain proxies. And in private, according to Greg Maxwell, Jihan Wu has bragged that Bitmain controls a majority of the hash rate outright. That is the first option. Second option is, let's say %50 of the hashrate is moved to S2X. So, Original Bitcoin blocks will be created more slowly, UTXO will grow up and yes network congestion will happen but I think the gap will be replaced quickly.
This may happen but in the long term, it won't sustain. The market will eventually tip one direction or the other, and miners will follow. The question is: how much effect can miners have on the market? If most miners leave the network, that may have a big psychological effect on holders/traders. |
|
|
|
This could be best way to get BTC2X coins safely, doesn't matter if this method takes long time for confirmations, the thing matters is that we will get the coins safely.
It looks like this may change. I saw someone tweet that Jeff Garzik unilaterally removed the opt-in replay protection from the BTC1 repository (can't confirm at the moment). Apparently, he reopened the discussion regarding strong replay protection utilizing the OP_RETURN function. If true, that means they are preparing for there to be two viable blockchains. I think, in the end the Segwit2x will not happen. ... we will see.
Or it will be the same as with Bitcoin CrASH. (dumped as soon as possible)
I think there's a chance it won't happen, but it looks like miners and businesses are mostly doubling down. While I think that the legacy chain will prevail in the end, I think that if the legacy chain has minority hash rate, that this will affect the market more than people are currently pricing in. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
