I detest Linux and don't care what anyone else thinks. I've downloaded multiple versions and loathed every single one of them.
When it comes to crypto use a hardware or paper wallet. For crypto related computer needs I use a Windows machine that'll never see the internet again.
Spot on. The primary issue is hot vs. cold storage, not Linux vs. Windows. I also personally hate all versions of Linux I've tried, and Ubuntu as well. Simply horrible UX. Fair enough, I'm not a programmer, and I prefer an OS that works seamlessly without constantly needing to use command line functions. It's so silly to expect Bitcoin to go mainstream, while also expecting bitcoiners to use Linux. Linux will always be a small niche. If it became as popular as Windows, you can be damn sure there would be much more malware targeting it. Windows is perfectly fine. For long term storage, use an air-gapped PC that never, ever connects to the internet. Generate a new wallet on the cold machine, sign transactions on that machine and broadcast them from a "hot" machine. You should never be storing much on an internet-connected machine. |
|
|
|
lets clear this matter up
replay protection is not needed!
whn a implementation wants to utilise consensus to upgrade the network when it activates there would be only ONE network, meaning no double coins.. just a majority continuing on one network and a minority stalled with orphans unable to sync. end of How do you determine majority and minority? Companies (major economic nodes) might decide for their users, but can they deal with the blowback if they were wrong about what users wanted? Replay protection is required if users are unsure which chain to follow. If both chains are viable, they ought to have the option, rather than many people instantly losing their coins on one chain or the other.
when core demand replay protection they are basically saying they want to create an altcoin by refusing to be part of the upgrade(new implementation(bip)) and will force a altcoin generation if people run the new implementation(bip).
what core should be doing is not being dictators and cause an altcoin. but instead let consensus do its job.
On the contrary, they are simply giving users a choice, rather than forcing a hard fork through their software which many people don't support. This way, users can have a choice one way or the other. I get it: you'd prefer one chain, no split. Wouldn't we all? The question is, which chain is that? |
|
|
|
It is in my opinion that China is very short sighted in their ban on ICOs. I am only an observer of the whole ICO market as I hold Bitcoin only. But I do believe in ICOs as the future of a democratized way of getting financial support for the unbanked.
Who said that entrepreneurs with good ideas should not be given every opportunity by the community themselves? But of course we should still be careful and be responsible with our own actions. People will lose money from scams.
Do you think a country like Switzerland or Singapore welcome ICOs and become new havens for them?
I don't think most countries will follow China with an outright ban on ICOs. In a regulated environment, there is a lot of potential economic growth and taxable revenue to come of ICOs. I think the SEC is hinting at regulating, rather than banning them. I think their recent ruling was meant as a warning to ICO operators: if you're a security, get registered or take moves to prohibit US residents from participating. Canada is one example. They seem to be offering a much more welcoming approach: While China is Getting Tough With ICOs, Canada Voices Support For Token SaleFinancial regulators in Canada are giving the digital currencies and initial coin offering (ICO) activities a big break. Among the regulators is Quebec’s Autorite des Marches Financiers (AMF), which intends to give the Blockchain use case a chance, if not altogether encourage it. To show its support to ICOs, the AMF has determined that the token sale conducted by socially responsible enterprises investment startup Impak Finance is a security. The regulator also accepted the company into its regulatory sandbox. The AMF has also relieved Impak Finance some of the requirements that it usually required from securities for protection purposes so that the ICO will materialize. According to AMF corporate finance division director Patrick Theoret, the move is a test case to determine whether there will be investor protection issues that will emerge from the ICO: "It’s in the spirit of the sandbox that we are willing to alleviate some of the requirements on, sort of, a test case basis. It's a test run to see whether there are investor protection [issues] with the relief that we grant." https://cointelegraph.com/news/while-china-is-getting-tough-with-icos-canada-voices-support-for-token-sale |
|
|
|
Consensus everywhere I've asked appears to be: BCH isn't going to hurt Bitcoin. That's good news, and I suspect that's going to be true.
It's probably true, but that's because there is no economic support behind it. Even if half of Bitcoin's hash rate switched temporarily, that doesn't equate to demand on the part of users. But that also doesn't make all hard fork attempts equal. On the contrary, I suspect that Bitcoin Cash was an experiment by Bitmain to test the waters, and perhaps wasn't intended as an all-out attack on BTC. What will happen in November, though, if the economic majority backs the hard fork? You'd have Core and the small blockers on one side, and a majority of miners and the major Bitcoin services (and their users) on the other. That's an ugly situation. It seems to me that the crucial distinction is this: do users really believe it's a hard fork, or do they believe it's just an altcoin? It's clear that BCH is accepted as an altcoin. I really don't know what will happen with Segwit2x, though. |
|
|
|
The way it works right now is if you withdraw 55% then you instantly lose the other 45%, and your account gets deleted permanently. However, if you wait until the 15th the new exchange launches and you can get back potentially 100% or more.
Right, because it's reasonable to expect that you might get back more than 100% of your original funds. After all that money in all those bank accounts was supposedly frozen.  They said that users that stay for the relaunch will get more than 55%, but I wouldn't expect a great difference. The rest will be provided in debt tokens, similar to Bitfinex's scheme last year. This is a bit of a shakedown on the part of the exchange. They know that a good deal of their clients have no interest in verifying their identity, and would love to have their accounts permanently deleted. By refunding more than half their funds, it's enough to get these clients to leave happily enough. This way, the exchange is attempting to retain the customers that are more likely to provide liquidity upon the relaunch, rather than try to immediately exit in whatever way possible (disrupting the markets, destroying liquidity). I'd never use their new exchange at this point. Not with an FBI target on their back... |
|
|
|
I am still not able to register, it's only me or are they refusing new clients? It's almost a week now...
You should probably take this as a sign not to register. Look up-thread. It's not clear when, but Nova changed their terms to state that they are in "beta" mode. They openly state that orders might be mismatched, and if the counter party who profits from mismatched orders is able to withdraw the funds from the exchange, you can't recover them. I've never seen terms like this from an exchange before. It's mind-blowing. And to boot, they have wallets in maintenance for days and weeks on end, and are doing manual withdrawals for a few bitcents! Stay the hell away from this place if you want to keep your money. |
|
|
|
But since even legally issued ICO tokens (i.e. they will have to be registered and have strict disclosures and restrictions on trading) will not be legal to trade except on registered exchanges, then they will be illegal to use as cryptocurrencies, which by definition are spent (traded) decentralized. Thus ICO-issued cryptocurrencies are dead.
Do you include Ethereum in this assessment? Technically, Ethereum was an ICO. The funds were raised in BTC and investors were compensated with ETH tokens from the genesis block. Thereafter, though, ETH has only been created by mining. I imagine that if the Ethereum ICO were happening today, it would be covered by the PBOC's new prohibition. The founders are probably lucky they got in on the ICO craze so early, though. I doubt they plan to ban ETH... |
|
|
|
This is really a bad news. They ban every ICOs or they ban some of the ICOs? What will happen if all the countries follow the same thing?
Essentially, all ICOs are banned. At least, they cannot be administered in China, and ICO tokens cannot be offered to Chinese residents. Now, in practice that's not much different than the USA. To the SEC, most of these ICO tokens are unregistered securities, and it's definitely illegal to issue them to US residents. What happens? The people running ICOs change the terms, saying that US residents aren't allowed, and maybe at most there is an IP restriction placed. Then US residents just get a VPN and invest anyway. Same here. Most countries regulate securities. I think most will also be a bit more subtle and just stiffly regulate ICOs, not outright ban them. |
|
|
|
hi guys anyone here who knows why all altcoins are down?
anyone expecting bitcoin to hit 4k again?
Because the Chinese government banned ICO, and banned the exchange operations with bitcoin. I think the price decline will now be a couple of weeks. The government banned ICOs within China, and there is some suggestion that ICOs based there need to liquidate assets and refund investors. However, I don't see evidence for your second assertion. A bunch of people have been spreading FUD around the forum that the PBOC is also banning fiat/cryptocurrency exchange entirely. No news sources confirm this, and one reputable news source in the space (cnLedger) actively refuted it. This is just about ICOs. Not sure whether the overall panic is over yet, though. |
|
|
|
There are so many companies can accept bitcoins as payment method. But btc payment option brings so many problems. First and biggest problem is volatility. Crypto world is not stable and less volatile no matter of which coin/token you are referring
From the company side, it is not a big problem as it seems. There are solutions for merchants to have their payment in Bitcoin converted automatically in fiat this to avoid the volatility. Bitpay, Paymium and surely some others offer this solution. So as merchants you don't lose any money. The same could be implemented for the customers side. It can be done, but I don't think this is particularly useful to adoption, especially if it's done through payment processors that just dump directly to fiat. We saw a lot of merchants adding Bitcoin payment options throughout the 2014-2015 bear market, and I don't think it drove adoption. Seeing it as a merchant payment option might help overall BTC recognition, but as a consumer, it wouldn't make me think, "I better go out and buy some BTC so I can spend it on Uber." Especially if I knew anything about it and took into account the costs of acquiring BTC. And the fees to spend it on low-cost consumer payments. It doesn't make much sense. It would be interesting if these companies accepted BTC and then also began including it in their investment portfolios. That would definitely have an effect on supply. But I don't know how likely that is. |
|
|
|
If you trade your BTC on websites like Bittrex or Cryptopia the fees can be $5, sometimes the fee is equal to half of your withdrawals. So do you think the fee is too high? If not then explain to me, please.
I guess the question you need to ask yourself is, "why am I withdrawing $10 at a time?" Bitcoin isn't coffee money anymore. These types of fees can largely be avoided by manually entering correct fees per 21co (aim for a 0-1 block delay, not next block). As for the exchanges, they have to deal with lots and lots of inputs, so their transactions are large. As long as blocks are full, there will be this sort of fee pressure. So when it comes to exchanges, you should be limiting the number of times you withdraw. Make larger withdrawals to your local wallets where you can control the fees (and your transactions are smaller). And start batching your payments in general to save on fees. |
|
|
|
- Txid --> ........
Now they ask me for a blockchain transaction (Txid) of almost 4 years old in order to unblock my account....... How should I proceed, as I might have found it, yet I am everything but 100% sure that it is the correct one? I believe that if it is the wrong one they will delete it entirely.. Maybe they will unblock it when their new ticket system is online, as they are closely being monitored? It must already be evident to them that I am the one and only owner of the account and that they are solely ask questions in order to keep the funds.
I have also read elsewhere on this forum that no one could be suspended on legal ground as it wasn't even in the terms of use back in the day.
I appreciate each and every response, thank you!
I won't lie. The situation isn't good, particularly due to the recent FBI seizure. There have been a handful of similar complaints over the past year, so you aren't alone. Unfortunately, I haven't heard that there was a favorable resolution in most of these cases. I don't think their actions here were necessarily nefarious: they had a rash of account compromises (likely linked to the database leak years ago), so they started locking inactive accounts, believing they were likely to become hacked. What did they ask for, specifically? The transaction which funded your account? Did they want you to sign a message from the funding address? The site is up on btc-e.nz now. The ticket system is apparently online, and you can submit your inquiry there. |
|
|
|
I read on several websites that especially gov agencies are not capable of tracing bitcoin transactions.
On the other hand I read that Monero at this moment has the most security in tracing. Is this true ?
I can't really comment on Monero as I haven't done enough research. But regarding governments being incapable of tracing BTC transactions: this is not true, at least not anymore. Blockchain analysis companies like Chainalysis and Elliptic are becoming very sophisticated, and a lot of money is pouring into the sector. These companies are definitely working with governments (and law enforcement) to help identify darknet market and money laundering activity. I also think that as Bitcoin services and exchanges become more mainstream and therefore increasingly pressured to comply with AML/KYC laws, that they will be working with these companies to root out nefarious customers. |
|
|
|
BTC-e brought their .nz domain back online. Users are logging in, checking their balances, re-setting passwords......and the trollbox is live.  The US government essentially labeled them a criminal money laundering organization, suggesting that any proceeds withdrawn from the exchange could be considered the proceeds of money laundering.This sets up a very interesting case study regarding the fungibility of BTC and other cryptocurrencies (at least the ones offered on BTC-e). If I had to guess, companies like Coinbase and Bitstamp are already working closely with blockchain analysis companies to identify and track BTC-e coins. It's really unclear what might happen, but it seems possible to me that licensed, compliant exchanges might freeze accounts linked to coins withdrawn from BTC-e. Am I crazy to think that? We are talking about hundreds of thousands of BTC (and quite a lot of LTC, among other coins). If these coins are blacklisted on some exchanges, I imagine a discount would develop for BTC-e coins, since they would be less fungible. But the bigger issue: this raises worrisome questions about fungibility in general as governments become increasingly involved in the cryptocurrency space. Edit: This thread is about fungibility, not about the prospects for customer refunds, etc... |
|
|
|
Been in bitcoin for years. Each time there is an improvement in protocols there will always be FUD. But it will be good to look above the technical issues and see the basis of how bitcoin works: a community that supports the development and use of bitcoin. And as long as they support and sustain btc, it doesn't matter how many hardforks occur.
Here's the problem. Core developers (most Bitcoin developers) don't see it as an improvement, and actively oppose the fork. So, if the Segwit2x team and the miners/businesses backing them really move forward with the fork, then the FUD is warranted. This isn't like a soft fork where a simple majority of miners can prevent a split from occurring. A hard fork "upgrade" requires that every user installs new software and joins a new network. That means a split is guaranteed already. Add the fact that Core and many BTC users don't support Segwit2x? Get your popcorn ready. But now we have Bitcoin Cash So what's the purpose of the NY agreement conspirators forking Bitcoin (again) provided there is no consensus between them and the Bitcoin Core team (which seems to be the case)? There is also no consensus to support Bitcoin Cash's 8MB block size (without Segwit). The NYA signatories never agreed to it and never indicated any support for it -- except Bitmain via proxies like ViaBTC. So why would you assume that it could act as a substitute for the Segwit2x fork? My take is that Bitcoin Cash appeals to the Bitcoin Unlimited camp. They have always been on the extreme end of the "let's break things" mindset. Core and the small block camp remain towards the other extreme, against any hard forks except under very limited circumstances. The majority of miners (excluding Bitmain) and major BTC services seem to support a "meet in the middle" approach. In that regard, not much has changed since the NYA emerged a few months ago. Would it make any sense to create yet another Bitcoin when there is already an 8M block Bitcoin? I don't think that two Bitcoins is a good idea anyway but three is certainly an overkill. Could the SegWit2x proponents just abandon the 2x part since it would basically replicate Bitcoin Cash if made into a separate Bitcoin?
Sure, that's one possibility. Another possibility is that they go forward with the hard fork under the assumption that the Bitcoin ecosystem will largely follow (leaving the legacy chain to die). I think that's a bad assumption, but who knows what they'll do? |
|
|
|
I think that in the future more and more governements will accept bitcoin and not ban it. They have started to accept it as a new reality and something that they would like to use for their benefit too. Ban is no longer an option except maybe in some weird countries like Russia or Korea. I even expect from the banks to start offering bitcoin related services to their clients.
That's my expectation as well. 2-3 years ago, when US Congressman were openly calling for it to be banned, and governments saw Bitcoin and darknet markets as synonymous, I could have seen a ban happening. Today, coverage is too positive across the globe, and since no country can control it, no government wants to be left behind. Russian regulators recently said that they want to limit Bitcoin investment to "Qualified Investors" (institutional whales), claiming they are uncomfortable with the level of anonymity it provides. On its face, this may appear to be an effort to discourage the public away from Bitcoin. But I think it's an effort to allow elites a chance to get their dirty fingers in the pie before everyone else does. |
|
|
|
Been in bitcoin for years. Each time there is an improvement in protocols there will always be FUD. But it will be good to look above the technical issues and see the basis of how bitcoin works: a community that supports the development and use of bitcoin. And as long as they support and sustain btc, it doesn't matter how many hardforks occur.
Here's the problem. Core developers (most Bitcoin developers) don't see it as an improvement, and actively oppose the fork. So, if the Segwit2x team and the miners/businesses backing them really move forward with the fork, then the FUD is warranted. This isn't like a soft fork where a simple majority of miners can prevent a split from occurring. A hard fork "upgrade" requires that every user installs new software and joins a new network. That means a split is guaranteed already. Add the fact that Core and many BTC users don't support Segwit2x? Get your popcorn ready. |
|
|
|
I'm wondering this because is such a real threat to bank system and we all know how banks and governments are tightly linked !
BTC could make people more autonomous, self-resilient, being their own bank. You can use it like cash, making your transaction almost untraceable (or untraceable using e.g. monero or dash or laundry systems) : this is governments worst nightmare, isn't it ?
I think it's because the government already realized that they could also take advantage of bitcoin. It's not impossible that even the government itself is using bitcoin. The only reason why bitcoin is a threat to banks which would make the government consider bitcoin illegal is that bitcoin is decentralized. There is no way that the government and banks could limit it. Many in the Bitcoin space share this idea that BTC (or other another cryptocurrency) could replace fiat money or become a world reserve currency altogether. I don't think that's realistic. Bitcoin is much more like a commodity than a currency. It makes sense for governments to have cryptocurrency reserves like they do gold reserves. To say that central banks and governments can't control the market fluctuations of Bitcoin is also to say the same of gold or oil. Like BTC, commodities have no central issuer, but the markets can certainly be influenced and manipulated by state actors. |
|
|
|
I think it's a threat.
I wonder what would happen if in the future the barrel of oil starts to be priced in Satoshies instead of $.
I think a legal "war" is coming, very soon
We are already heading towards a world where the petrodollar is less relevant. This year, Shanghai is launching crude oil futures markets (prices in CNY). The issue here is that governments don't have identical interests. The only party that benefits from the petrodollar is the United States. In many ways, much of the world would benefit from a reserve currency system not dominated by the USA. The US government would have loved to have killed off BTC. But they were smart enough to realize that was impossible. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is a path breaking innovation and I am sure that Satoshi is not a single human. A group is definitely behind the bitcoin's development. Otherwise, it wouldn't have been possible to make bitcoin so immensely popular. There was a structured workforce for all the hard work done behind bitcoin. I don't think that's necessarily true. Whether Satoshi was an individual or a group has no bearing on its level of popularity. If you read through Satoshi's early posts (on the mailing lists and here on bitcointalk), his writing style was very recognizable. If it was a group effort, they were very careful only to have one designated "face" to the world. Satoshi wasn't the best coder (there were some big mistakes made early on), and he himself said that the work of Bitcoin was mostly about the design and not the code. From that perspective, it makes sense to me that he was the initial architect, but not the most capable steward to deliver Bitcoin to the world. Thank goodness for Core. If it's anyone on that list, I think it's Nick Szabo. Very cryptography and design-oriented, and less code-oriented. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
