d - vit05


thank you

Although it often seems that the market is completely controlled by whales, the truth is that it is controlled by fear and misinformation. We are still in a market where the price can reach close to zero if any prohibition occurs. What is important to reduce this is to increase commercial use and liquidity. We need to stop looking at charts, we need to look at the supermarket shelves with their prices on BTC.

And which company offers an insurance service for exchanges? I believe that I am particularly pleased when the exchanges look for mechanisms of security and control in solutions linked to cryptocurrencies. Perhaps more ways of auditing the portfolios anonymously and independently would be very useful. One of the big problems is whether the exchanges have the values they say they have. The possibility that many are extremely leveraged is not so unlikely.

A partir deste post qualquer comentário não relacionado a uma campanha de assinatura ativa será excluido.

---

BITCLOAK SIGNATURE CAMPAIGN
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2349397.0

RATES

Legendary/Hero    BTC 0.01 / week
Senior    BTC 0.005 / week
Full member    BTC 0.0025 / week


We Are looking for :

5 HERO/LEGENDARY at least 510 Merit/1010 Merit
5 SENIOR at least 260 Merit
10 FULL MEMBER at least 110 Merit

|

BITCLOAK

|

p/w

|

0.01

|

0.01

|

0.005

|

0.0025

|

x

|

x

|

x

|

25/w

|

x

|

Y/N

|

vbuterinEthereum - Vitalik Buterin • 3d
I obviously have every incentive to disagree with this, but I think there are quite a few very critical economic and technical details that the article is missing.

TLDR: we are likely not doing full "economic abstraction".

Here is the core of their argument:

Suppose we’re building a new decentralized application, BuzzwordCoin. By default, following a standard ERC-20 Token template, every transaction on BuzzwordCoin will pay gas in $ETH. Requiring every BuzzwordCoin transaction to also depend on ETH for fees creates substantial risk, third party dependency, and artificial downwards pressure on the price of the underlying token (if one must sell BuzzwordCoin for ETH ahead of time to run a BuzzwordCoin transaction, then the sell-pressure will happen before the transaction requires it, and must be a larger sale than necessary to ensure sufficient funds to cover the transaction).

Instead of paying for Gas in ETH, we could make every BuzzwordCoin transaction deposit a small amount of BuzzwordCoin directly to the block’s miner’s address to pay for the contract’s execution. Paying for Gas in a non-ETH asset is sometimes referred to as economic abstraction in the Ethereum community.

In Ethereum as it presently exists, this is absolutely true, and in fact if Ethereum were not to change, all parts of the author's argument (except the part about proof of stake, which would not even apply to Ethereum as it is today) would be correct. However, the community is strongly considering two proposals, both of which have the property that they enshrine the need to pay ETH at protocol level, and furthermore the ETH gets burned, so there's no way to de-facto take it out of the loop by making the medium-of-exchange loop go faster. The proposals are:

The modified fee market described in the draft paper here: https://ethresear.ch/t/draft-position-paper-on-resource-pricing/2838 , where average gas usage is targeted to 50% of a (2x higher than today) gas limit, using a self-adjusting minimum transaction fee to do the targeting, where the minimum fee gets burned. This fee would be charged to the block proposer, so the block proposer could charge fees in spankchain tokens or whatever other ERC20, but the block proposer would still be responsible for coming up with the ETH to pay the minfee.

Storage maintenance fees (aka "rent"): pay N wei per byte per block to keep data in storage, or else it gets "hibernated" and you need to submit a Merkle proof to revive it. This fee also gets burned.

By my guesses, well over 2/3 of transaction fees paid could end up being burned through these mechanisms.

Without ETH, a modified version of Proof-of-Stake with a multitude of assets could still decide consensus if each node selects a weight vector for the voting power of all assets (let’s call it HD-PoS, or Heterogeneous Deposit Proof Of Stake). While it is an open research question to show under which conditions HD-PoS would maintain consensus, consensus may be possible if the weight vectors are similar enough.

I actually looked into this back in 2015, and heterogeneous deposit PoS is very hard (maybe impossible) to get right. The problem is, how does the protocol know the ratios between the values of the tokens? One could use an in-protocol decentralized exchange, but (i) this would need to be subsidized to be secure, and (ii) one can construct "pathological tokens" that have rules that are designed to treat any in-protocol penalties as a no-op. So doing this securely would possibly depend on some form of "on-chain governance", which is obviously a huge attack vector ( https://vitalik.ca/general/2018/03/28/plutocracy.html ).

So if the community is not doing HD-POS, then depositing ETH becomes the only way to get access to transaction fee revenues. So altogether, the equilibrium value of ETH in this scenario under even a standard "discounted future returns" model is very much nonzero.

Edit: just saw this:

Detractors of economic abstraction (notably, Vitalik Buterin) argue that the added complexity is not worth the ecosystem gains. This argument is absurd. If the software doesn’t support the needs of rational users, then the software should be amended. Furthermore, the actual wallet software required for any given token is made much more complex, as the wallet must manage balances in both ETH and the application’s token.

Economic abstraction can still happen at the user level; users could pay in spankchain tokens, but the block proposers would still need to cough up ETH. One could also use intermediate solutions, where third parties create "wrapper transactions" that take the fees for operations from users that are paid in spankchain tokens, and the third parties provide the ETH to the block proposer.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ethtrader/comments/9ch5ls/comment/e5av470

---

---

Tópico com as principais campanhas que pagam em Bitcoin
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=615953.0

Term:				Ranks:
p/d	||	post/daily		L	||	Legendary Member
p/w	||	post/weekly		H	||	Hero Member
p/m	||	post/monthly		S	||	Senior Member
f/w	||	fixed/weekly		F	||	Full Member
f/m	||	fixed/monthly		M	||	Member
				J	||	Junior

---

Campanhas de assinatura

---

Active

|

Campaign

|

Term

|

L

|

H

|

S

|

F

|

M

|

J

|

Min

|

Max

|

Escrow

|

|

777Coin*

|

p/w

|

.000035

|

.000035

|

.00003

|

.000025

|

.00002

|

x

|

15/w

|

60/w

|

Y/N

|

|

Bitvest*

|

p/w

|

.00005

|

.00005

|

.00004

|

.00003

|

.00002

|

x

|

15/w

|

60/w

|

Y/N

|

|

Stake.com*

|

p/w

|

.0001

|

.0001

|

.00005

|

.00001

|

.000004

|

.000004

|

5/w

|

x

|

N

|

PNYC

|

Campaign

|

Term

|

L

|

H

|

S

|

F

|

M

|

J

|

Min

|

Max

|

Escrow

|

|

x

|

x

|

x

|

x

|

x

|

x

|

x

|

x

|

x

|

x

|

x

|

FLUX

|

Campaign

|

Term

|

L

|

H

|

S

|

F

|

M

|

J

|

Min

|

Max

|

Escrow

|

|

Crypto-Games

|

f/w

|

$90

|

$80

|

x

|

x

|

x

|

x

|

25/w

|

x

|

N

|

|

Sportsbet

|

f/w

|

.01

|

.0075

|

.005

|

x

|

x

|

x

|

8/d

|

25/w

|

N

|

CFNP

|

Campaign

|

Term

|

L

|

H

|

S

|

F

|

M

|

J

|

Min

|

Max

|

Escrow

|

|

BitBlender

|

p/w

|

.0003

|

.0003

|

.00025

|

.0002

|

.0001

|

x

|

15/w

|

60/w

|

Y/N

|

|

BitCasino

|

f/w

|

.02

|

.02

|

x

|

x

|

x

|

x

|

25/w

|

x

|

N

|

|

BitDice*

|

f/w

|

$85

|

$85

|

$50

|

$35

|

x

|

x

|

30/w

|

x

|

N

|

|

Bitsler

|

f/w

|

$150

|

$125

|

x

|

x

|

x

|

x

|

25/w

|

x

|

N

|

|

Bustadice*

|

f/w

|

$100

|

$100

|

$75

|

$50

|

$25

|

x

|

25/w

|

x

|

N

|

|

ChipMixer

|

p/w

|

.00075

|

.00075

|

.00075

|

x

|

x

|

x

|

x

|

50/w

|

Y/N

|

|

Cloudbet*

|

p/w

|

.0001

|

.0001

|

.00009

|

.00008

|

.000065

|

x

|

15/w

|

50/w

|

N

|

|

Ethex.bet

|

f/w

|

.0002

|

.00015

|

.0001

|

x

|

x

|

x

|

15/w

|

30/w

|

Y/N

|

|

FortuneJack

|

f/w

|

.02

|

.02

|

x

|

x

|

x

|

x

|

25/w

|

x

|

N

|

|

LiveCoin

|

p/w

|

.00035

|

.0003

|

x

|

x

|

x

|

x

|

10/w

|

55/w

|

N

|

|

Windice.io

|

f/w

|

.0075

|

.005

|

.0035

|

.002

|

.001

|

x

|

25/w

|

x

|

N

|

|

YOLOdice

|

p/w

|

.00035

|

.00035

|

.00025

|

.00015

|

.00005

|

x

|

x

|

40/w

|

N

|

---

---

Me comprometo a excluir comentários spam e com campanhas que pagam com tokens que não são listados nas principais exchanges. Nem todas aceitam posts nos foruns locais.

---

---

Se puderem, postem utilizando esse layout.

---

---

I think it could have more moderators levels with different functions. For example:

It could have a ghost moderator who could just hide a certain topic or post. If anyone still wanted to read the content of that topic or post, he could still click on it. Thus the number of these moderators could be higher and the recruitment simpler. The hidden post could then be deleted or moved by a moderator with more powers if needed.

 Não vi spam nele e ajudava muito usuarios. Ajudava a concentrar todas as discussões relativas a campanhas por ali. Além dele, outros tópicos com muitas postagens foram fechados. Tem alguns onde o assunto realmente se esgota, mas outros servem apenas para atualização sobre um determinado assunto. Bem melhor que abrir vários tópicos.

 Enfim, tem campnha nova pagando bem:

Merit.me https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5015102.0

10x Full Member Spots Open ~ 0.004BTC/week.
13x Sr. Member Spots Open ~ 0.0065BTC/week.
10x Hero/Legendary Member Spots Open ~ 0.0125BTC/week.

Não tem nenhuma proibição sobre posts locais.

---

---

Tópico com as principais campanhas que pagam em Bitcoin
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=615953.0

---

All Bitcoin Signature Campaigns

---

Active

|

Campaign

|

Term

|

L

|

H

|

S

|

F

|

M

|

J

|

N

|

Min

|

Max

|

Escrow

|

|

FOXBIT

|

p/m

|

R$330

|

R$330

|

R$ 260

|

R$ 210

|

x

|

x

|

x

|

100/Mês

|

x

|

Netox

|

|

Merit

|

p/w

|

0.0125

|

0.0065

|

0.004

|

x

|

x

|

x

|

x

|

15

|

/w

|

Y/N

|

|

777Coin*

|

p/2w

|

.000085

|

.000085

|

.000075

|

.000065

|

.000055

|

x

|

x

|

15/w

|

60/w

|

Y/N

|

|

BQT

|

p/w

|

.0007

|

.0007

|

.0004

|

.0002

|

.0001

|

x

|

x

|

10/w

|

30/w

|

Y/N

|

|

IOU

|

p/w

|

.0007

|

.0007

|

.0004

|

.0002

|

.0001

|

x

|

x

|

10/w

|

30/w

|

Y/N

|

|

Campaign

|

Term

|

L

|

H

|

S

|

F

|

M

|

J

|

N

|

Min

|

Max

|

Escrow

|

|

CloudBet

|

f/w

|

$50

|

$50

|

x

|

x

|

x

|

x

|

x

|

20/w

|

x

|

N

|

|

MoonX

|

f/w

|

.01

|

.008

|

.005

|

.0035

|

.002

|

.001

|

x

|

20/w

|

x

|

Y/N

|

|

YoBit.net*

|

p/d

|

.0003

|

.0003

|

.0003

|

.0002

|

.00013

|

x

|

x

|

x

|

20/d

|

N

|

|

YOLOdice

|

p/w

|

.00035

|

.00035

|

.00025

|

.00015

|

.00005

|

x

|

x

|

x

|

40/w

|

N

|

|

ChipMixer

|

p/w

|

.00075

|

.00075

|

.00075

|

x

|

x

|

x

|

x

|

x

|

50/w

|

Y/N

|

 

e - vit05

You can read all the information necessary to understand more about the similarities between the two projects and more information about the transparency of these companies in their reputation topic that was opened by @xtraelv


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4931035.0

I do not agree with this at all. This type of attitude shows that the project has as its main objective to enrich a few people and that it is far from being a decentralized project. The Dfinity project made yet another round of investment among a few investors. I found this bad attitude since they had distributed by airdrop.

Something interesting to observe when abnormalities like this occur, is the value of the average transaction. Every project is too far away from Bitcoin. This shows how cryptocurrencies are still far from being adopted globally. Especially the altcoins, people trade cents of them. So we have 2 options, or people are spamming the network, or is just a test.

There are some people trying to spam the ETH network, and there is a lot of tests going on with BCH, Nano etc.

Bloomber

With fewer than 100 residents, Ocean Falls is looking for a revival after almost four decades of industrial false starts.



In 1971, an 11th grader named Greg Strebel wrote the introduction to a book about Ocean Falls, the tiny town in the British Columbian hinterlands where he lived. Strebel mentioned the odd fact that many of the town’s roads were made of wood, said the weather wasn’t as bad as some people made it out to be and noted that it had just gotten a new school building. But the one thing that mattered above all, according to Strebel, was the paper mill. “To most, 'the mill’ imparts a sense of security by its presence,” he wrote. “A low throb of power is audible throughout most of the town as long as the mill runs, accompanied by voluminous exhalations of steam.”

The security provided by the mill turned out to be fleeting. It went silent when Strebel was in his 20s. Most of the buildings in Ocean Falls that haven’t been demolished over the decades are crumbling in place, and Strebel, along with most everyone who once lived there, is long gone. A population that peaked at 5,000 has fallen below 100. But this summer, the mill began to emit a new sound. It was more of a buzz than a throb, really, but plenty loud to be heard as far away as the ferry dock and the old firehouse. It was the noise of hundreds of tiny fans blowing air past hundreds of tiny computers, keeping them cool while they ran 24 hours a day, creating Bitcoins.

The Bitcoin mine has come to Ocean Falls after almost four decades of false starts. The town went dormant once the paper industry left, but it wasn’t dead, exactly. The dam that powered the mill was still capable of producing about 13 megawatts of electricity. Some of that went to power Ocean Falls and two nearby towns, Bella Bella and Shearwater. But even in the middle of winter, their residents used less than one-third of the electricity, leaving plenty to support new industrial uses. The dam wasn’t connected to the grid, a shortcoming that could also be an advantage in the right hands. Any power-hungry business willing to set up nearby would be well-positioned to negotiate a sweetheart deal.

Use!
People need to use cryptocurrencies. We need to encourage its use. They need to spread it and talk about it. Have this expectation that only the financial market can be considered for the Bitcoin becomes popular is absurd.

Bitcoin was made to disruption the financial institutions. And not to be just another asset used by banks and speculators.

Por qual razão dão tanta moral pro relatório desse grupo? Saiu em todos os sites como se eles fossem uma grande autoridade nessas questões. Vi que eles também teriam um outro relatório dizendo que 80% dos ICO eram scam. As projeções que eles colocaram são bastante ousadas. Principalmente nas desvalorizações de alguns projetos em 99% já num primeiro ano.

ALguém tem a historia desse Satis Group?

No site não vi ninguém que fosse muito reconhecido na comunidade Bitcoin. Nem algum grande VC de silicon Valley. Apenas algumas pessoas que trabalharam sem grande destaque em Wall Street.

A CEO foi demitida a menos de 1 ano atrás por ter feito merda.

“Ms. Channing was fired for cause upon the discovery of evidence suggesting serious misconduct by her, including the potential misappropriation of Argon assets and intellectual property for her personal gain, and the dereliction of her fiduciary duties as the general counsel and an officer of the company,” Brian Ruby, a spokesman for the company, told The Post.

Náo encontrei em nenhum lugar o portifolio de investimentos ou serviços prestados. Twitter deles é seguido por quase ninguém, medium tem poucos artigos. Acho estranho essa moral toda que estão dando a esse relatorio. Mas não pesquisei muito, pode ser que eles sejam muito relevantes e tenham grandes feitos, por isso essa importancia toda.

I'm noticing that many anonymous projects are going up in value today. Projects like Monero, Verge, Komodo, Zen. They grew a lot, with highlight to Bitcoin Dark that grew absurd 200%. It went from 17 dollars to over 80. Has there been any change in the prohibitions? Or would it be indicative of something strange that might occur?

BTW. BitocoinDark was swapped to Komodo. All of the team started working exclusively on Komodo.

I think the best source for this is Luke Dashjr website. The number in there is 80659 Bitcoin Core nodes

https://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/software.html

And on coin.dance you could check more charts.

The threat of attack is very real for upstart cryptocurrency projects. Bitcoin Gold, a popular hard fork of Bitcoin, $BTC▲0.3% is set to be delisted from cryptocurrency exchange Bittrex.

The reason for the removal is that the currency has suffered a series of debilitating heists that netted thieves over $20 million in stolen funds.

Back in May, Bitcoin Gold was hijacked with rented computing power. After hackers took control of more than 51 percent of the overall hash power, more than 388,000 BTG (approx. $18 million at the time) was stolen directly from Bittrex. Hackers were able to use “double-spending,” a method of repeatedly tricking an exchange into transferring more coins than it should.

In doing so, almost $18 million in cryptocurrency was stolen directly from exchanges. It is uncertain just how much was taken from Bittrex, but Bitcoin Gold maintains that compensation of over 12,000 BTG ($265,000) was requested.

It shouldn’t be surprising, then, that by September 14, Bitcoin Gold will be completely removed from Bittrex.

In response, the Bitcoin Gold development team uploaded a lengthy statement, which told its side of the story:

Bittrex informed us that they make this decision because the BTG team would not “take responsibility for our chain,” and that taking responsibility meant paying Bittrex 12,372 BTG to cover the loss they incurred. They later informed us they would cover part of the loss from their own BTG reserves and requested we pay the remaining ~6,000 BTG, and that if we did not, we would be delisted.

This is proof that security incidents really do have a lasting effect on cryptocurrency projects. The dev team does defend itself by claiming the 51 percent attack that led the double-spending was not its fault. Instead, it blamed the Proof-of-Work consensus style on which Bitcoin Gold operates.

The Bitcoin Gold team is not responsible for security policy within private entities like Bitrex (sic); those who earn revenue running a private business must manage the related risks and are ultimately responsible for their own security.

Obviously, Bittrex does not feel the same way, but whether or not this will have an impact on the long-term survivability of Bitcoin Gold, isn’t yet clear. What is clear, though, is that market sentiment has turned.

Last year, when $3.3 million worth of Bitcoin Gold was stolen after users were tricked into downloading a fake wallet, it was ranked the fifth largest cryptocurrency by market cap.

https://thenextweb.com/hardfork/2018/09/03/bittrex-delists-bitcoin-gold/

---

Bitcoin gold is a bad project from the beginning. I hope it disappears soon as it offers nothing innovative or revolutionary.

It seems that these changes in the process of opening and maintaining the Exchanges are only to ensure that customers have transparency and quality in the services provided.

That would be a sign of market maturity. Where the government already looks at these companies naturally and expect them to provide good service to their audience. Having companies like these in serious countries that do not just serve as a tax haven is a very important thing for all of us.