Hey guys, Don't know if these kind of posts are still kosher around here, but I have used (100% working) Bitmain Antminer L3+ I would like to sell for Litecoin or DigiByte. Will ship continental US. Price will be based on the current CoinMarketCap price of each before-mentioned crypto (as of this post now around 1.9 LTC or 6999 DGB including shipping). It has also been listed on eBay here: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Bitmain-Antminer-L3-504M-scrypt-miner-for-Litecoin-Digibyte-Dogecoin-etc/303881193644Let me know if anyone is interested - first paid, first served kind of a thing. Thanks |
|
|
|
I must admit I have always been resistant to the idea that CW might be SN due to a simple fact that savvy businessman such as Craig Wright would at least copyrighted Bitcoin name and sue the crap out of any fork creator daring to use this name, but there is mounting circumstantial evidence pointing that CW might indeed be Satoshi. This article is from 2016 https://cointelegraph.com/news/in-search-of-bitcoins-mysterious-creator-can-david-kleiman-be-satoshi-nakamoto (somewhere in the middle there is supposedly an email written by CW to David Kleiman). |
|
|
|
|
Am I being paranoid or Roger Ver and Craig Wright dumping BTC to support their projects? BCH (ABC) and BCH (SV) are up on rather impressive volumes lately.
|
|
|
|
He keeps saying it's retarded and for retards without even giving one argument for his point of view, i took a look in his channel and he's been talking shit about bitcoin for the last 4 to 5 months now, when the bitcoin was around 5k $ it's now 2.5 times more, seems to me he's the retard, he should be embarrassed,.
To be fair he was talking about Bitcoin for years, not months, and he was always consistent in his conviction... Whether his is right or wrong only time will tell. |
|
|
|
So far the Foundation has contributed 16M of EMC2 coins for science projects. Is there any information published on this? Do you know of any scientific project EMC2 foundation has contributed to? Dr.Havekes project was the last project we funded: https://www.emc2.foundation/past-campaignthose were pionir steps we (all) are going to do some really serious fundings in 2018 Ok, thank you guys |
|
|
|
So far the Foundation has contributed 16M of EMC2 coins for science projects. Is there any information published on this? Do you know of any scientific project EMC2 foundation has contributed to? |
|
|
|
|
Why would they run multiple checks at every space rocket launch even rockets are the same? Lots of at stake I guess, and they are pros.
|
|
|
|
|
You must be new to this... Good learning lesson unfolding right in front of you.
|
|
|
|
Ok, thanks for the heads up guys... What a freaking mess  |
|
|
|
No. In the US and Europe, you can transfer your Bitcoin throughout the world.
China wants to restrict exchange ledger withdrawals to only other verified people
within the country. Their new regulation is about restriction, not tax compliance.
Only time will tell what the impact this will have on bitcoin in the long run.
Hmm, haven't realized it was that bad... I thought they were trying to enforce KYC rules similar to what others have done, but I guess I'm just ill-informed. |
|
|
|
...That said I do not have any valid arguments against larger blocks, faster transaction confirmations and lower fees, if solution is graceful, does not destroy Bitcoin brand, rarity and trust of over half of it's users.
What about if it hurts it's current decentralized and unregulatable nature? Do you think Bitcoin could continue to exist or be valuable without them? I'm all for on-chain scaling and lower fees too, but not if in 5 years Bitcoin is directly regulated by governments. Look what China is currently doing to their Chinese Exchanges. You think they wouldn't do that to the protocol if they could? Satoshi made Bitcoin to be bigger than a low fee payment system, it was for freedom. Yes, all valid arguments... What China is doing is already done here in the US. |
|
|
|
It is pretty certain that BU wont win the race with all the bugs you can imagine and remember they were running these for over a year and still they were not capable enough to find out the bugs until it was forced to and you think they are competent enough to take over the billion dollar industry.
Yes, looks like BU is slowing down according to https://coin.dance/blocks |
|
|
|
Quote from another post which actually made me come the f..k down a bit, think, and have a sympathy for the opposite side of this whole block size debate. I honestly thought this particular bitcoiner was just a rigid ideologue, but I was wrong - this scaling issue is as real to him and thousands of other bitcoiners as it gets. Instead of fighting our personal believes / ideology / philosophy may be we should start with that.
I'm a relatively small Bitcoin investor but I also actually pay my employees in Bitcoin. It saves me thousands of dollars a year vs Paypal. The recent network congestion was a firsthand exposure of the dangers of failing utility as transactions started getting stuck and fees became dangerously uncompetitive.
Personally, I have always viewed Bitcoin as a precious commodity and a store of value first. As any other working stiff who has to wake up early in the morning, go to work, come back after dark completely exhausted, I wanted to find a monetary system where my sweat, my time and my energy were exchanged for honest form of money... Form of money which does not get diluted, does not split in two or three, and does not loose it's value over time. Outside more traditional precious metals Bitcoin was an obvious choice for me (despite being a risky one). That's why I wanted to see at least 90% consensus (not 51, 60 or 75) before any Bitcoin hard fork could be seriously considered. That said I do not have any valid arguments against larger blocks, faster transaction confirmations and lower fees, if solution is graceful, does not destroy Bitcoin brand, rarity and trust of over half of it's users. |
|
|
|
The Tale Of Bitcoin
Once upon a time there was loads of space in blocks. And all the TXNS lived happily being processed quickly.
Then the number of TXNS become so large that the blocks were full.
The Blocksize was increased. (This has already happened in the past)
The number of Nodes running the FULL version of Bitcoin shrank.. (more resources required - bandwidth / storage etc..)
La la la - all the txns are happy again, as the blocks weren't full, and they could all be processed quickly.
Then the number of TXNS become so large that the blocks were full.
The Blocksize was increased. (This has already happened in the past)
The number of Nodes running the FULL version of Bitcoin shrank.. (more resources required - bandwidth / storage etc..)
La la la - all the txns are happy again, as the blocks weren't full, and they could all be processed quickly.
Then the number of TXNS become so large that the blocks were full.
...
BU : We want Bigger blocks again!
CORE : Well.. every time we increase the Blocksize we have PROOF that the number of full nodes decreases. This will obviously end with a single digit number of miners being the only ones even capable of running a full node. Let alone mining. Not great for decentralisation. Let's try a different route ?
BU : NO! We want bigger blocks. And Give the power to increase the size to the Miners..
CORE : But we just explained how we feel this will destroy the central premise of Bitcoin ? And give FAR TOO MUCH power to a handful of miners.
BU : SHUT IT! We want bigger blocks. And if you don't give it to us we're going to split the network! And give the power to the already overly-powerful Miners.
CORE : Well - we have a solution that gives us INFINITE capacity without increasing the Block size ? Are you interested now ?
BU : NO! NERDS!.. Give us Bigger Blocks!
..
.. boom. The End.
And this is how Bitcoin died sweetie. Lol... This was good |
|
|
|
This is certainly worrying me now. I can barely grasp the technical details. I'm one of those users who got into bitcoin just using local exchanges and use that to send money or buy bitcoins and hold them. I don't know now if this would cause my coins to lose value. I'm not surprised that some people have been selling off their coins. True some of those might be "whales" or whatever but there are also probably those who just find this all complicated and want out before they lose money.
Yea, I hear you... Same here. Still, looking at the markets I can't believe how well BTC is holding up considering amount of negative pressure and contention out there. A few years ago BTC markets would have 20-30% daily swings, and now we are lucky to see 2-3%. I might be imagining things, but to me it feels Bitcoin is maturing and stabilizing with each passing year, and getting more immune to mood swings and publicity out there. |
|
|
|
For example, right now you have several hundred, possibly more, BU nodes identifying as Core. The reason they do this is to avoid the ongoing DDoS attacks which are attacking BU nodes across the board.
Wouldn't it be even more amazing if a few thousand BU nodes were masquerading as core nodes, and then suddenly switch when time was right? Holy s...t - that's called strategy  |
|
|
|
No actually nodes are ran by many other normal users and bitcoin service providers along with the miners but miners play important role in hard forks. After hard fork the network which will have majority of mining power will survive while the one which doesn't have much support from miners will ultimately die.
Thanks for that... Could we see repeat of Ethereum? Both ETH and ETC are still alive 10 month after the fork with sufficient hash power to support each branch. Ethereum brand has survived so far... I guess ... Nah, we should be fine. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
