...
May be people are moving coins to the exchange or out of cold storage. I haven't heard any major news to trigger a climb, I think people are just more confident in the $250 support level and decides it's a good time to buy.
...
You are probably correct. I'm not a day trader, so I never see this coming. |
|
|
|
#1 price is on the rise, price changes usually result in more transactions #2 TX are piling up and I guess most miners have found the config file to raise the softlimit from 750KByte  PS 6K unconfirmed is nothing spectacular. Thank you for your comment. I'm just surprised, for a while now, the blocks found seem to be hitting the miners own self imposed block limit. All look 700 and 900s. I didn't know this was normal when prices rise like this. I have not paid attention much to the blocksize amounts till the debate of 20mb of the past few months. I was just surprised to see the size consistently. Usually I see a 500kb or less thrown in between the large blocks. |
|
|
|
Why are we getting so close to the cap like this? Are people running stress tests again? Also the BTC market price rose greatly today. Based on what news? What is going on?  |
|
|
|
|
How did your address become compromised? Are you saying a hacker/thief can sign on that address??
|
|
|
|
|
I am not entirely sure, but I think there is nothing you can do other than contact support.
Since you enabled "IP restriction", there is no way to access your account without support removing that security.
Why would you use an IP restriction and why do you no longer have access to that IP?
|
|
|
|
Those are some very very low fees, which should mean that your transactions won't be confirmed unless the Bitcoins are a very large amount. The default transaction fee and recommended fee is still 0.0001BTC.
Yes. The user could always pay a small amount if there is no rush and no need a fast confirm. But in theory, if you want to be in the next block, then 0.0001 is still recommended. |
|
|
|
To new users of Bitcoin/bitcoin, this video is very good at arguing against increasing the limit.
One why it does so is by arguing that the original intention of bitcoin will be eroded and destroyed.
Most new users know Bitcoin/bitcoin as being "freedom from centralization/banks/governments/agencies/[fill in the blank]/etc".
Whether this video is factually correct or not, is not important. Propaganda is propaganda and has 5,931 views.
To most users of Bitcoin/bitcoin, they do not understand or wish to understand any of the facts or fundamentals. (IMO).
The blocksize limit argument, in relation to the masses, will be won by emotional arguments and statements such as these.
(Eventhough, I believe currently, most users are for an increase, and up to around 20 MB.)
I think someone, who supports raising the 1MB cap, who has the know how and skill, should make a video in response.
I would very much enjoy seeing and hearing the opposing arguments in the same style and fashion as this one.
Well would they be allowed to make up any information they want and say that if you keep blocks at 1mb size that satoshi will come out of the wall and take your first born? It would just make things a bit more even. Well if the noobs would fall for it, Id say it would help the cause.  But seriously, someone should make one for raising the cap, preferably with truths though. |
|
|
|
|
To new users of Bitcoin/bitcoin, this video is very good at arguing against increasing the limit.
One way it does so is by arguing that the original intention of bitcoin will be eroded and destroyed.
Most new users know Bitcoin/bitcoin as being "freedom from centralization/banks/governments/agencies/[fill in the blank]/etc".
Whether this video is factually correct or not, is not important. Propaganda is propaganda and has 5,931 views.
To most users of Bitcoin/bitcoin, they do not understand or wish to understand any of the facts or fundamentals. (IMO).
The blocksize limit argument, in relation to the masses, will be won by emotional arguments and statements such as these.
(Eventhough, I believe currently, most users are for an increase, and up to around 20 MB.)
I think someone, who supports raising the 1MB cap, who has the know how and skill, should make a video in response.
I would very much enjoy seeing and hearing the opposing arguments in the same style and fashion as this one.
Edit: Spelling.
|
|
|
|
Currently, the safest investments are a trezor or a paperwallet.  Seriously though, I do not believe there are any programs or systems that are real and safe, where you can invest. I know of BTCJam, and have heard of good things if you diversify and do small transactions with only A and B Verfied, but have never used it. You should just hold for long term. |
|
|
|
|
When I originally looked at the transaction he provided, it seemed to show sending 1btc to bitfinex.com and the rest to a change address.
I thought it was unusual for a hacker sophisticated enough to pull this job over (some RAT or etc) but not really cover their tracks.
Hopefully OP didn't lose that change address privatekey some how.
|
|
|
|
How secure would a sidechain be? Just as secure as the bitcoin network? Or easily hacked? Double spend?
Depends on what type of sidechain is made. You could create one that mines, like bitcoin network, and checks for double spends and etc. But overall, most would probably be premined/instamined. |
|
|
|
The sidechain networks, from my understanding, is for thousands or millions of transactions a day, using their own coin.
Because of this, Bitcoin/bitcoin can stay the way it is and not have to hard fork to handle an increase in block sizes (20mb debate).
The idea is to keep it tied to bitcoin and will use Bitcoin network to do 1 or 2 major settlement transactions a day.
The altcoins that currently exist are not directly tied to bitcoin, but can be bought and converted into bitcoin.
But yes, I do think when it comes to the sidechain networks, they are instamined, controlled, and not decentralized.
But I may be incorrect on that.
Ultimately, the sidechain networks are a work around from increasing the Bitcoin block size.
So the vendor would need to decide what sidechain coin to accept making it that much harder for stores to truly accept bitcoin and a big pain for adoption, I see this as definitely a negative. Yes, in theory. It is possible there could be competing sidechains in the future and venders could use multiple ones like Visa, Mastercard, etc. The vendors could choose which ever sidechain network they preferred. One could be tied to Coinbase, another could be Bitpay, or etc. Or it could be that one beats them all out and there is only one official BTC sidechain network for vendors, in the future, when the time comes. The debate is whether Bitcoin should be "the" coin for all global transactions, or should be "the" final settlement coin, that all other systems feed back into. |
|
|
|
the difference is that they will no be any real pump&dump or malicious dev behind it with hidden instamine, premine and other craps like that, and their use will be directly connected with bitcoin, instead of serving their own only
When a dev makes a sidechain he sets the rules, why is there no instamine or other crap? I feel this is definitely an unproven speculation. The sidechain networks, from my understanding, is for thousands or millions of transactions a day, using their own coin. Because of this, Bitcoin/bitcoin can stay the way it is and not have to hard fork to handle an increase in block sizes (20mb debate). The idea is to keep it tied to bitcoin and will use Bitcoin network to do 1 or 2 major settlement transactions a day. The altcoins that currently exist are not directly tied to bitcoin, but can be bought and converted into bitcoin. But yes, I do think when it comes to the sidechain networks, they are instamined, controlled, and not decentralized. But I may be incorrect on that. Ultimately, the sidechain networks are a work around from increasing the Bitcoin block size. |
|
|
|
Have you tried restarting your computer? |
|
|
|
|
You two both forgot, and most importantly!
...Continued...
person 62: who is satoshi?
person 63: I know who satoshi is!
person 64: No, I know who satoshi is!
Person 65: Satoshi is dead.
person 66: Satoshi is lurking the forum.
person 67: I heard satoshi is gonna dump all his coins on us!
person 68: Satoshi is the NSA.
person 69: When will satoshi return to us?
person 70: Satoshi is an alien illumanti clone with cyborg implants from the future.
person 71: Tomorrow bitcoin will go up.
Continue...
|
|
|
|
None of the above: The team opposing Gavin seems to have a huge conflict of interest and may benefit from not raising the size. Maybe it only needs to go up to 2 mb in the short term, who knows? But when they oppose a needed change, or appear to, I have to vote against them because they only have their own best interests in mind at the cost of the community.
You are correct that there are users who are concerned with exactly what you have stated. I guess I have should have added that option, for both sides. Please vote as follows, if this applies to you:
XT: More tx = Other Devs have ulterior motives
Please consider your vote then to be: XT: prevent disaster.
Core: Same tx = Gavin has ulterior motives.
Please consider your vote then to be: Core: prevent disaster. |
|
|
|
|
I understand that polls do not really mean anything and are not considered representative.
I am curious how members here would vote in this poll, nonetheless.
There are many new threads discussing the pros and cons of each side (Core or XT).
But it is pretty chaotic with name calling and half truths and lies, on both sides.
Please choose which best describes you.
You may only vote for one option.
You may change you vote, if later you change your mind.
Results are shown after you have voted.
Thank you for your time.
Edit: corrections/spelling
Update:
Please vote as follows, if this applies to you:
XT: More tx = Other Devs have ulterior motives.
Please consider your vote then to be: XT: prevent disaster.
Core: Same tx = Gavin has ulterior motives.
Please consider your vote then to be: Core: prevent disaster.
|
|
|
|
|
I vote for and push for an agreement reached between the devs.
Maybe a middle ground can exist here.
I do not think this is good for Bitcoin/bitcoin.
Nothing good will come from this.
We may all become the losers in this game of chicken.
I vote for a settlement!
Edit: I will not vote in this poll. I choose the middle ground.
|
|
|
|
What do you expect from the halving next year regarding price development of Bitcoin?
Currently, the price is very stable although there are created around 3k new Bitcoins every day. In my opinion, the price stability results in a constantly increase of demand. When the supply will be halved in 2016, the price should be grow linear if the current demand stays the same.
What do you think?
It will take a few days/weeks for people to catch on, but I believe it will go up and stabilize right away. I'd say around $475 and will stay within that relative zone. (As long as everything is normal and smooth with the code/protocol.) But of course, no one knows. Someone should do a report or study about this with actual economists. I wonder what a group of them would each say. Would there be conscious? Or divided due to economic principals most of us are unaware of? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
