|
This has been ongoing for years. There are more energy efficient algos than SHA. That's why multipools exist, to mine whatever is most profitable and sell for BTC.
BTC won't give way just because another currency is more profitable. Otherwise it would have given way years ago.
|
|
|
|
when looking at below picture remember these: - bitcoin apart from increased adoption has been under a heavy spam attack.
How do you know this? The rest is, I guess, altcoin discussion and thus not in the scope of this sub-section, and not really in my scope either...[/list] |
|
|
|
|
Transaction fees are fine as is. You want to fix something that's not broken. What need addressing is scaling...
|
|
|
|
Those blaming bitcoin for the invention of all evil ransomware programs should do some research.
Research is counter intuitive to keeping the masses uninformed. Was there a way to fight back and clean it up without paying?
Many of these viruses were pretty simple and some even had coding errors that allowed them to be wiped in a relatively easy manner. But some others just infected your DOS disk files too when you tried to format your computer... One of the things bitcoin is revolutionazing sure is ransomware. The ability for criminals to receive anonymous payments from afar is astoundingly useful to them.
That's the reason many governments are not regulating bitcoins to accept it do any regular business. Recent ransomware attack brought even more bad reputation to the bitcoins and other cryptocurrencies. Many non-bitcoin users are now thinking that bitcoins are using only for these illegal transactions. So other good things about bitcoins no one wants to know it. Millions of dollars are used daily for many crimes, such as drug dealing. That being said, shouldn't we also stop using dollars for "regular business"?  If it wasn't Bitcoin they were using it would be something else. It doesn't matter.
Sums it up quite well. |
|
|
|
Following my previous reply, I think it's important to detail that this isn't exclusively about SegWit and since most opinions seem to be like what I described above, this actually doesn't really mean a lot.
Interesting way to downplay its relevance to segwit activation, but okay, you make of it what you will. Time will tell now. The problem is, that tweet is as relevant for SegWit activation as it is for activation of any other proposal. It mentions "scaling compromise", which covers many things beyond SegWit. It sure is, can you imagine a Bitcoin community post segwit? No constant attack from BU shills, no yearly scaling debate with spam attacks. Imagine how much the coin could actually grow.
Can you imagine a Bitcoin post Bitcoin Unlimited, for example? Using your point of view, it would be no more constant attacks from SegWit shills... Same thing goes for both ways regardless of which proposal is best. In my point of view, if/when SegWit activates, Bitcoin Unlimited shills will only scream louder But we'll see. then the remaining pools will likely change their stance because it will become obvious they're only being obstructive as opposed to offering an alternative.
Let's seriously hope this happens. I too think it will, pools will only have things to lose if they become obstructive. |
|
|
|
|
Seemingly never, at least judging by what we've been seeing...
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting graphic. Half a year later, things are pretty much the same...
|
|
|
|
It never really had any traction, just like any solution that mixes a bit of every scaling proposal, because unfortunately the general opinion seems to be "we either have this or that" No, there's actually been forward progress on activating segwit at last. The discussions have all been private at the moment between pools and some mediators but the twitter feeds are starting to leak information about how much progress has been made, so I retweeted one of the relevant posts. https://twitter.com/ckpooldev/status/865188614082150400Following my previous reply, I think it's important to detail that this isn't exclusively about SegWit and since most opinions seem to be like what I described above, this actually doesn't really mean a lot. |
|
|
|
I don't think there's a need for diversity, one just has to try a few and use the few ones that are really good.
How that isn't diversity ? "Using the few one's that are really good ?".Okay for instance,you store all your coins on a desktop wallet like Electrum and your PC gets attacked by a ransomware or by a RAT ? What you do ? Lose all your coins ? That's not a good choice.Having the coins distributed always adds a security layer. That has nothing to do with using one or one thousand wallet softwares. If you're attacked, you're attacked. The attacker either gains control of your coins (and that's not wallet's fault, there's no known vulnerability in any of the most used wallets) or he doesn't and you can recover your coins from backups. But I do agree that distributing coins somehow adds a bit of security. The question is, how much security does it add against having coins on the same software but distributed in different backups? And the practicality of having coins in one single software? PS: let's not forget that we're talking about coins that we have for daily spending. Personally, I only use breadwallet at the moment. It doesn't let me set a fee, but its fee calculating algorithm never let me down. If you really want to set a fee, just use Core or any of its derivatives. If you want to set a fee but don't want a full blockchain, take Electrum.
We're talking about distributed computing here... Not sure what you mean by distributed computing in this context. Do you mean that there's no need for more diversity? Because what you describe is that we already have diversity in Bitcoin wallets.
Yes, this would be a better way to describe what I meant  Some wallet software has become redundant. We're at a point in which some wallets softwares and online wallets are just rediscovering gun-powder... |
|
|
|
|
I don't think there's a need for diversity, one just has to try a few and use the few ones that are really good. Personally, I only use breadwallet at the moment. It doesn't let me set a fee, but its fee calculating algorithm never let me down. If you really want to set a fee, just use Core or any of its derivatives. If you want to set a fee but don't want a full blockchain, take Electrum.
|
|
|
|
If Bitcoin is "too big" for coffee, I wonder how people feel about paying for a coffee with a card. If we look at it, maybe Visa is a bit overkill for coffee too |
|
|
|
Did you get something? I'm thinking in offering my skills as translator but people realy hire this sort of work from here?
Not lately, but yes, people do hire folks from time to time. |
|
|
|
|
Either nothing or buy more.
|
|
|
|
I have seen bitcoin mentioned in TV and radio programs in the past hours due the ramsomware attack.
Unfortunately... Did you see it on the mainstream media in your country? what did they say?
Absolute garbage as usual, mentioning Bitcoin only when something bad happens is terrible to begin with and describing what Bitcoin is erroneously just makes it all even worse. Mainstream media can't even get the basics right, I can only assume they want to steer people in a certain direction. It's impossible that they're not trying to direct people to think badly about Bitcoin when people go on TV to talk about it (for the worst reasons) and those people don't even have a clue what Bitcoin is. Extremely frustrating... Bitcoin went from "dangerous and uninsured" to "dangerous, uninsured and criminal" on big mainstream media here. That doesn't mean Bitcoin is inherently to blame Oh wow! Congratulations to Bloomberg, someone finally figured it out! I bet within 90 days bitcoin doubles in price because of all the newly educated people from this event.
I see you like gambling  |
|
|
|
Bad time to boycott BitPay and other payment gateways... But I do understand the frustration. But we also have to give them a bit of credit for helping to catapult a whole lot of new merchants accepting payments in Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
The article was an interesting read. I probably wouldn't have found it unless it was posted here, however seems like posting something like this here will lead to a bit of unproductive discussion... Why is Jonald Fyookball's opinion so important these days? Who is he or she? I cannot see why any of the sides will ever come together... no matter what they say in open letters. The miners are driven by greed.... NO scaling benefit them now, because they can milk the users for higher fees and nothing will change their minds. We {full node} users make decisions based on the quality of the code.... not who these people are.  Miners do have an incentive to scale - their incentive is to avoid screwing up the network and stopping people from sending transactions. Each scaling solution has some level of support from miners because what they perceive to be their own interests often varies. There's no accurate way to judge what's in the miners' best interests. If they do nothing they screw themselves over. Obviously they can milk a lack of scaling for a long time but not forever. Miners do have an incentive to scale: collect more fees in each block. By the looks of things right now, people would quickly fill bigger blocks. It comes down to what miners prefer, "half a dozen" of transactions with a hefty fee or many transactions with a small fee. I think the second one is the smart and long-term way to go and if I had a mining operation that's what I would choose for. Don't forget that miners have more to lose than just transaction fees. If Bitcoin doesn't scale and goes nowhere, they're done, no more profit for them. Do you think they'd like this? |
|
|
|
Mainstream people are fed the lies their mainstream media give them, so these people obviously only think you can buy drugs with Bitcoin Which is unfair, unfortunate and, above all, a big lie. |
|
|
|
|
It is a game changer, and one reason is enough to explain why: financial freedom. It allows us to break free from banks, it allows us to be our own bank. Even if Bitcoin dies, its ideas will still be here and I'm hoping that in a not too distant future we can stop using banks entirely. This in itself is a really big game changer, it changes something that was simply "just like this" for years
|
|
|
|
Wrong section, you should post on the Marketplace, more specifically on the Hardware subforum. |
|
|
|
New laptop wont have old files...
Actually people use for long time the cloud storages for private files. It's hard to believe for me, that a private user have any precious info as files. The companies need to cure about the security of files. It's hard for me to believe that there is a single person that doesn't have at least one important piece of info as file... Think again, if you're here you very likely have at least one precious info as a file. I think, maybe demand will go down for a few days or may also increase.
... Don't even know what to say. I think it is mostly Windows XP computers that are at risk.
Unfortunately, like the cash machines we use at banks, many old systems run NT and XP.
I dont think anyone would risk paying this damned virus because it doesnt have your secret key in ESCROW to guarantee data release.
In other words, you are paying for nothing, most likely.
so no, I doubt it will have an effect on Bitcoin price.
But it will make anyone who is interested in bitcoin have a bad reputation in some peoples eyes.
This is imprecise, even computer up to Windows 10 are vulnerable unless updated, just like any non-updated XP machine. Pretty curious that they didn't target cash machines, now that I come to think of it... About payments, think again. Last time I checked they already had 20+ BTC. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
