To me it looks like BC is crouching and preparing to jump. The last week may well be like the 3 days before the run to 90k. BlackHalo release may be the trigger.
Slight correction. 90K! Don't scare me like that! Also I'd like to point out that with BTC at $654, we only have to hit 52.6K sats to reach our ATH in market cap. That also means we're currently at 39.7K sats under the old scale!  |
|
|
|
If you think people want open source code is so they can rip it off you are a moron.
{{Regarding anonymity, does blackcoin have any anonymity features like darkcoin?}}
No, but neither does darkcoin yet. There is a possibility we could encourage the developers to add it after darksend is open source
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=521328.msg5898153#msg5898153I poste a few pages back, I have been working on an alt coin exchange for over a year. Just finished my masters in CS. I going to make a BC centric exchange and hope others will follow. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=469640.msg5904891#msg5904891------------------------------ ETA - I do not have any BC but think the Dev is doing amazing things. Don't understand why it is not rocketing. BC will have some anonymity in trading on BlackHalo from what I understand. Price isn't rocketing because nothing has been released yet. |
|
|
|
damn it's boring on minpal for BC  22k --> 23k --> 22k --> 23k but i love the work that has been done for POS V2 and Blackhalo Whales are trapped in VRC you see sell pressure in BC DRK... Simple prove VRC 1000 addresses own 99,8% of all coin this is about 8000$ per address  … So VRC is Whale coin with whales battles today. As you see DRK dump same time VRC is keeping high while BC is under sell pressure. Someone smart putted buy wall in BC and he know that whales are cashing out BC to buy more VRC to play and stealth buy BC opportunity is quite good. Normally that buy order would pump BC to 25-30k.Usually no one is buying that way unless he have plan or some surprising service for BC which will pump price. If I were business man before I raise some good service I would buy some market share Like that man who putted 50BTC buy wall manipulation walls are removed fast after hit That one got hit with 100k BC and that man putted another 22BTC into buy wall. I think there is something going one in future no one with 22BTC is stupid enough to Place that kind order. Also BC team to be honest are one of best without premine or IPO. In longer round I don’t worry about BC price. Looks to me like all the Anon coins are splitting the money. Now Vertcoin is getting a share of it. |
|
|
|
I had talked about this before and every seller should be able to pay an additional fee of 1% to prevent all unauthorized transactions. This will solve 99% of all chargebacks. PayPal then calls up the buyer and verifies the buyer made the transaction. Seller has absolutely no responsibility for unauthorized transactions. Seller still has to deal with "not sending disputes" and "description not matches."
But the majority of scams are the unauthorized.
I would say that unauthorized scams are that way because it is simply the easiest. It requires the least amount of proof and the least amount of work. If this kind of feature were to be implemented then we would likely see other types of dispute scams. I would also argue that paypal would likely charge more then 1% for this kind of feature. They would need to keep an audit-able log of each time they talk to someone. I would say that it would take, at minimum 5 mines for the agent to verify that they are in fact speaking to the customer and verify that the customer authorizes the transaction. I think that most paypal transactions are relatively small (<$100) so I don't think that paypal would want to be making this little on something that cannot be done with automation. Another issue is that I believe that the FCRA (fair credit reporting act) allows people to dispute credit transactions after the fact. If a customer was to successfully dispute a transaction that could not be reversed to the seller then paypal would have to take the loss. You're right. It would definitely be more than 1%. I'd think of it more like Unauthorized Protection - But like you said other disputes require more work and don't have as high chance of winning. I'd say the system would be better overall. Whole process can be automated pretty easily. 1. Email verification can be automated. Lots of scammers don't have access to PayPal email. 2. Phone verification. Text to phone. Done. 3. Security questions. The ones you need to pass when signing up for Coinbase. If they fail, seller can make decision whether to proceed. Coinbase already does all these and I never spoke to Coinbase once on the phone. TADA! All automated and much safer. After "authorization" is established it's actually pretty easy if they have eBay username. You can just go by feedback. Regarding the whole unauthorized transaction situation, I think it's ridiculous the seller should ever be liable for unauthorized transactions because PayPal has all the information to do this verification not the seller. (Including IP addresses.) 1 and 2 - This would not stop people from saying that their account was hacked and an attacker was able to access the email and 2FA device. 1 - If someone were to hack into someone's paypal email then they could perform a password reset on the paypal account (AFAIK), making this option moot. 2 - This would work, but how would paypal verify your identity when you change phone numbers, or if your phone were to be shutoff because of non-payment? You could potentially be shut out from your money because of this. Another issue is that this would need to be opted in by the buyer, so if the buyer does not opt in then the seller would not benefit from the feature. AFAIK paypal does not offer a way to only do business with accounts with certain security features (they would likely not do this either due to, among other things, security concerns). 2 and 3 - Paypal would have the issue of fake paypal sites that could pretend to be paypal, get your login credentials, then ask for your 2fa and/or security questions then forward you to the actual paypal site. This is what the fake blockchain.info sites do when they try to trick users into putting their identifier and password into the fake site, they actually open their wallet but the coins are transferred out shortly thereafter. 3 - You have the same issue of the buyer needing to opt in but is protecting the seller as above. Having these questions would also not resolve the issue of the fact that paypal would likely not force users to answer these security questions prior to every transaction, it would likely be only once to verify one's identity. 1, 2, and 3 - The current system generally works for paypal as the majority of paypal transactions go through without any issue. It is only with bitcoin related transactions that paypal is not good for (not "only" but it is one of the larger struggles). With a shipped good, it is easy to document that the item was actually shipped to the customer's house, and if so then even if the transaction was unauthorized, paypal could have the customer ship the goods back to the merchant to be reimbursed. It is much more difficult to prove that the customer received any kind of digital goods, and the fact that bitcoin cannot be reversed makes it even more complicated (in theory a digital license could be revoked in the event of a chargeback). 1. Nothing's foolproof. But you'd be surprised how many "buyers" couldn't do a simple email verification when I was selling BTC on eBay. 2. Back when I was doing business on PayPal with intangible goods, I'd require all buyers to send a phone number to contact them. Scammers are usually shy to accept phone calls. I'd then match the phone number area code to make sure the address state was the same. If not, I'd start asking questions. Tricks like asking to speak to "Mr. Shoobitz" to make sure a kid's dad was aware their kid was making "authorized" purchases on PayPal. 3. PayPal might not offer the option of security questions again. But it should be an option to require it. If I had a payment system, I'd let the seller choose how much protection and charge for each one. Their security questions are crazy tough. Your first cellphone number and cars you used to own. Old addresses. Intangible goods started way before BTC - MMORPG accounts and goods, Digital codes, digital services, website design, graphic design. I think a good first step if PayPal uses the blockchain as proof. Then we can at least establish delivery. Right BTC address is a whole different monster. PayPal could make a great escrow for digital currency. Lots of options that I believe PayPal won't take. $1 for email verification. $1 for phone verification. $5 for security questions. $20 or 5% for unauthorized protection whichever is higher! |
|
|
|
PoS 2.0 is very big news. The small guys may not care much about enhanced security, but those who have a lot of BTC and looking to invest are likely very concerned. Knowing security holes are being patched up, and with a dev like rat4 really has to give some of the bigger investors some peace of mind about going long. Wonder if those who did it cashed the BTC out for FIAT already, i don't think that the BTC pump has already peaked.
Silly if so. Holding a combination of BTC and BC over the next 6 months to 1 year will likely prove to very lucrative. I expect BTC to go back over $1000 in that time frame, and BC.. well, way above 22K sats that is it currently at.  All my BTC is in BC. I always tell myself not to put all my eggs in 1 basket. But with all this PoS is great. PoW is bad. And with 2 big projects nearing completion. And protecting the walls and giving further support to protecting my even bigger investment, I just run out of BTC to do other things. Otherwise I would have put some in Guerillacoin yesterday. |
|
|
|
VeriFund is simply a fund that swings back and forth from VRC to BTC. It does not fall under US tax code as there is never any conversion to FIAT and thus is just one property trading for another.
If that's true, then Bittrex wouldn't have to pay any taxes under the US tax code either. Until they convert to fiat you mean. But something still seems to be missing as that would mean you could operate a non-fiat exchange and never report a profit until you exchange to fiat. VeriFund doesn't sell to fiat, it just pays bounties. Bittrex takes fees and pays people. The IRS has not given any guidance whether trading BTC for altcoin is considered "same kind" or "different kind" property. But some people are paying the capital gains on their altcoin trades to be on the safe side. The problem here is if the IRS says, "Altcoin is considered different properties." Now all of a sudden every single BTC purchased by VeriFund is a taxable event. That's what I'm worried about. I'm curious how Bittrex deals with this. I'll ask them and see how they answer. |
|
|
|
VeriFund is simply a fund that swings back and forth from VRC to BTC. It does not fall under US tax code as there is never any conversion to FIAT and thus is just one property trading for another.
If that's true, then Bittrex wouldn't have to pay any taxes under the US tax code either. Until they convert to fiat you mean. But something still seems to be missing as that would mean you could operate a non-fiat exchange and never report a profit until you exchange to fiat. |
|
|
|
Will Vericoin pay taxes and will that be public record?
i think as long as bitcoin does it, vericoin is good to go  My concern is whoever controls VeriFund has to pay taxes. Everytime someone uses VeriSend, Veribit, or in the future pay with credit card is a taxable event. I'm not 100% sure how Verisend works, but changing Vericoins to BTC is technically a taxable event. Buying VRC with credit cards in the future definitely will be. Are you a tax professional? Or are you assuming this? What is your background in this field? I'll say it again, here are tax laws im assuming you feel are being violated. State and local revenue (income) taxes Again, there's no general rule that applies in every state and city. Sometimes all nonprofit income is exempt. Sometimes it matters how the income was earned, or what it's for. Sometimes the state or local rules parallel the federal tax statutes; sometimes they are completely different. So where is the specific issue? I'm not a tax expert, but it looks like Capital gains to me. Or VeriFund looks like a business and needs the proper licensing and records. VeriFund operates like Bittrex right now basically a US non-fiat exchange. |
|
|
|
Will Vericoin pay taxes and will that be public record?
i think as long as bitcoin does it, vericoin is good to go My concern is whoever controls VeriFund has to pay taxes. Everytime someone uses VeriSend, Veribit, or in the future pay with credit card is a taxable event. I'm not 100% sure how Verisend works, but changing Vericoins to BTC is technically a taxable event. Buying VRC with credit cards in the future definitely will be. Are you a tax professional? Or are you assuming this? What is your background in this field? I'll say it again, here are tax laws im assuming you feel are being violated. State and local revenue (income) taxes Again, there's no general rule that applies in every state and city. Sometimes all nonprofit income is exempt. Sometimes it matters how the income was earned, or what it's for. Sometimes the state or local rules parallel the federal tax statutes; sometimes they are completely different. So where is the specific issue? I'm not a tax expert, but it looks like Capital gains to me. Or VeriFund looks like a business and needs the proper licensing and records. VeriFund operates like Bittrex right now basically a US non-fiat exchange. |
|
|
|
Will Vericoin pay taxes and will that be public record?
i think as long as bitcoin does it, vericoin is good to go My concern is whoever controls VeriFund has to pay taxes. Everytime someone uses VeriSend, Veribit, or in the future pay with credit card is a taxable event. I'm not 100% sure how Verisend works, but changing Vericoins to BTC is technically a taxable event. Buying VRC with credit cards in the future definitely will be. |
|
|
|
|
Will Vericoin pay taxes and will that be public record?
|
|
|
|
well i said it 30min ago that it will hit 47-46 range and i got it right?Huh?(post is up) so who was smart and sold @54n and bought @47 congrats ......atleast i did that
i'm out at 495k, tried to rebuy at 465 but never hit... Undecided like i said second prediction of the day i said couple hours ago that we will reach @45 and we just did hope you guys sold high and reloaded this pump and dumps are so predictibale, such a many maker. Cheers to all that made money Will it go back to 50K? |
|
|
|
 I guess I'm a little out of the loop... I'm definitely not one of the "BlackCoin or GTFO" guys... I hold a number of coins at any one time (though at this point it's somewhere less than 7% of my total holdings that aren't in BC... and most of that is BTC looking for dips to turn itself into BC). However, I'm suspicious of any post which includes a two week old crypto in a list of more established coins. Interesting read in any case... just found it strange that a 30-yr veteran executive (in an un-related area) is even aware of Razorcoin... let alone thinks of it in the same breath as the other four coins mentioned.  Naturally I'm biased... but I certainly don't consider it anything other than a shitcoin with an outside chance - and not enough of one to bother mining/investing in it even. I think he's pretty much pointing out that not only does he know about Blackcoin but also knows about Razorcoin which was one of the more popular coins last week. Monero had a higher market cap though. I would have ended the interview with keep an eye on Exxoncoin in the future. haha Actually he should have made a joke about Fuelcoin instead of Razorcoin. |
|
|
|
|
Whale bought like 25 BTC at 22.5K sats. Also had a wall of 20 BTC at 20K. Now it's up to 52 BTC.
Ouch! Someone just took 20.5 BTC chunk out of the wall.
|
|
|
|
BTC is a paypal killer.
Don't see how paypal could "integrate" bitcoin into their payment system without adulterating bitcoin.
What we are witnessing are desperate attempts at survival for dying payment legacies - credit cards will be next.
Soon to be: chargebacks with bitcoin credit cards ---___--- Isn't BTC credit card a contradiction? It's a BTC Debit card. I had talked about this before and every seller should be able to pay an additional fee of 1% to prevent all unauthorized transactions. This will solve 99% of all chargebacks. PayPal then calls up the buyer and verifies the buyer made the transaction. Seller has absolutely no responsibility for unauthorized transactions. Seller still has to deal with "not sending disputes" and "description not matches."
But the majority of scams are the unauthorized.
I would say that unauthorized scams are that way because it is simply the easiest. It requires the least amount of proof and the least amount of work. If this kind of feature were to be implemented then we would likely see other types of dispute scams. I would also argue that paypal would likely charge more then 1% for this kind of feature. They would need to keep an audit-able log of each time they talk to someone. I would say that it would take, at minimum 5 mines for the agent to verify that they are in fact speaking to the customer and verify that the customer authorizes the transaction. I think that most paypal transactions are relatively small (<$100) so I don't think that paypal would want to be making this little on something that cannot be done with automation. Another issue is that I believe that the FCRA (fair credit reporting act) allows people to dispute credit transactions after the fact. If a customer was to successfully dispute a transaction that could not be reversed to the seller then paypal would have to take the loss. You're right. It would definitely be more than 1%. I'd think of it more like Unauthorized Protection - But like you said other disputes require more work and don't have as high chance of winning. I'd say the system would be better overall. Whole process can be automated pretty easily. 1. Email verification can be automated. Lots of scammers don't have access to PayPal email. 2. Phone verification. Text to phone. Done. 3. Security questions. The ones you need to pass when signing up for Coinbase. If they fail, seller can make decision whether to proceed. Coinbase already does all these and I never spoke to Coinbase once on the phone. TADA! All automated and much safer. After "authorization" is established it's actually pretty easy if they have eBay username. You can just go by feedback. Regarding the whole unauthorized transaction situation, I think it's ridiculous the seller should ever be liable for unauthorized transactions because PayPal has all the information to do this verification not the seller. (Including IP addresses.) |
|
|
|
|
Who runs twitter: BlackcoinPromo? Please stop mentioning other altcoins. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
hello blackcoin community, i have two questions.
Exactly what is the pos2.0?
What are the advantages of pos2.0?
The Whitepaper is expected to be published today. Basically it is an major improvement on the current PoS protocol in terms of network security, speed etc.. Obviously I can't comment on the security enhancements (didn't try to hack it - LOL), and naturally the testnet is faster due to limited transactional demands... but I can say from my testing that it is not only faster as far as transactions themselves, but the wallet itself seems to be much better (Windows binary at least). Still not going to do anything for the people that complain that it doesn't have an animated gif of a walking camel ...but as far as real functions and stability are concerned, it's tight and right. Faster? That's pretty ridiculous as we are already so fast. But anything to help us differentiate is great. |
|
|
|
LOL. who are dumping now? They dont know pos 2.0 Everyone's getting cheap coins but me.  |
|
|
|
|
I hope Max Borges has an article ready for Black Halo on release.
Edit: Actually initial momentum should be enough. But maybe something after 24 hours would be nice.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
