Maybe stop using centralized shit like website based ICOs and slack.
Dumb, lazy and greedy ICO gamblers deserve crap like this.
They will never learn. People want to get rich quick. Me too of course, who doesn't, but the difference is, I put some research on what I buy and I consider the risks. The problem with ETH and why it will never be a good store of value is because of things like this. Hacks will keep happening. No matter if it's a hack or an inside job.. the point is, tons of ETH will keep getting stolen and dumped into the market, crushing the price. The more ICO's, the higher chance of a lot of ETH getting stolen and dumped, and ETH holders will suffer the consequences. BTC is way simpler, so things like this don't happen. |
|
|
|
NYA will fail, because BTC is not about a couple fiat corporations gathering and taking over the protocol. Bitcoin whale will crush the SegWit2x coin and the miners will be forced to mine back into the real Bitcoin blockchain. Any other outcome would mean that Bitcoin failed since it was took over by a couple idiots in suits lead by SegWit2x main dev and CIA agent Jeff Garzik. |
|
|
|
|
If big blockers don't want SegWit2x, and conservative blockers don't want SegWit2x... then who the hell wants SegWit2x?
Apparently nobody likes this, but apparently, it is backed by 80%+ of the hashrate, and backed by a bunch of big online wallets, merchants, and other groups. They all claim it's what the users want, but clearly, the users that are technologically literate enough to know what's going on, aren't supporting big blocks of any kind. And these that are confused or just don't care about decentralization, are already happy with BCH's big blocks.
Then who the hell is supporting this damn think? I can't stand Jeff Garzik anymore and the rest of suited up retards like Barry Shillbert thinking they are smart.
|
|
|
|
Alts taking over? A symbiotic relationship with alts has always been and always will be fine to me, use dash or litecoin for your pint and burger use Bitcoin to pay interest on a loan from a Chinese investor.
I also fancy such symbiotic relationship between Bitcoin and the Altcoins but it seems these Alts are totally dependent on Bitcoin and so if Bitcoin is falling in value they also fall in value and vice versa. This makes it difficult for us to diversify our funds since they are all likely to follow a particular graph curve. And to use such alt shit you always have to do txs to exchanges and / or pay comissions. This is no solution. Bitcoin CAN do. It was about to remove middle men. If not, cryptoworld is dead in some years. Nobrainer is lift the blocksize ( make it a user param, not a consensus / protocol magic number) , let the markets find out where the real market/tech limit is, free as Bitcoin should be. We have already gone about this several times. It's technically nonviable to have the blocksize go up and down, the blocksize must be set as a rule, just like the 21 million coin limit. Read what the smart people say about dynamic blocksize and you may learn a thing or two. Everyone wants a dynamic blocksize, the problem is, all proposed solutions thus far do not work. In any case, claiming everyone using Bitpay wants to use segwit2x is act of hypocrisy only big blockers such as Jeff Garzik could come up with. |
|
|
|
Wild times. People dumping and panicing Core coin bug time.
We already dropped under $4000! And going deeper!
Smart move seems to be to move money into the stable Bitcoin cash or Ethereum.
Bitcoin is up all the way up this year and still holding above $4000. Bitcoin Crash has already gone from $800 to $500 and the short lived pump is already going to hell. Roger Ver hasn't got unlimited BTC to waste on pumping his alts. I can't wait to see Richard Hearth debate Roger Ver over Bitcoin, BCash and so on. The big blockers will get ridiculed badly. I hope Roger Ver doesn't chicken out from the debate. |
|
|
|
A question for the specialists here:
So some entities are liquidating large quantities of BTC to pump up BitcrashCoin, but the price of BTC remains quasi unaffected.
That maybe means there is a substantial inflow of fiat ?
And if these same entities are really planning to, at a certain point, cash their Bitcrash coins out, then what will happen with all
the others who bought that thing?
It will be very funny if schism happens in a couple of months due to Core still firm with Segwit and BitcrashCoin takes over the top. Would that be a realistic possibillity? If (enough) miners switched from BTC to BTH because it was more profitable to mine, it could cause problems for BTC. So yes, it's possible - but the whole market could lose faith with Bitcoin (both) altogether - and no one really wants to kill the golden goose. I hope. EDIT: for clarity This is a short lived pump and dump. BTC is still more profitable to mine considering the higher fees, BitcoinCrash will always have a bigger blocksize, therefore, it will always have lower fees. The profitability due hasrate fluctuation is temporal, miners know that they can't gamble too much trying to profit from this, because if they screw up the real Bitcoin, their whole business would collapse. |
|
|
|
Thats what UASF meant to be, users deciding what Bitcoin is. BitPay, Coinbase and other NYA signers have most Bitcoin economic activity, so it is fair they influence the most what Bitcoin really is. And as always for the small guys who disagree: if you dont like it, just use some other altcoin (I heard it so many times with relation to Bitcon fees from them so now its their turn to choose altcoin instead)
Wrong, owners of bitcoins influence community consensus by trading in open market and determnining what chain is the most valuable and deserves the most resources in a form of PoW. Companies like Coinbase and BitPay don't represent the will of their customers, but they can force their decision on them, since they control the private keys. When it comes to forks with no replay protection, it becomes especially dangerous, because it will for sure make many people lose their coins on both chains. I wonder how many failed hardforks will it take for corporate fiat hyenas to understand that in bitcoin you only matte if you are holding the damn thing. These CEOs of whatever corporation don't matter, they don't hold bitcoin, they hold fiat, USD, EUR or whatever, they don't want the best for Bitcoin, they want the best for the fiat they are holding and getting paid in, and losing their BTC on. Unfortunately, they do have an impact on the price, because they create FUD, crashing the price. |
|
|
|
BitPay should be noticed when they have a say what 'users' want.
They stand for voice of a huge merchant community watching the usability and risks of bitcoin's protocol.
If they 'say' it will influence many other merchants accepting or thinking of bitcoin.
Their business suffers from too high fees and LN or other 2nd layer scalings are yet no or no quick, safe options.
What do you users really want? Alts taking over here?
The insanely huge hipocrisy of clamining everyone that uses BitPay is ok with whatever the NYC agreement says is typical of the big blocker's delusional mindset. If you think any of the casual users that use BitPay automatically agree with the NYC agreement you must be on crazy pills. None of these people know what the fuck is going on with Bitcoin, they are the casual users that may buy a game or two on Steam and whatnot. This doesn't mean they sign the NYC agreement too, mostly because they aren't even qualified to understand what the matter is. Nice job by big blockers taking people hostage and claiming they agree with their bullshit. Have fun explaining them how your idea is so awesome as the price crashes heavily come November when Jeff Garzik, the blockchain inspector, pushes his agenda and shitty malware on users. |
|
|
|
With the recent difficulty corrections and current price, BCH is now more profitable for mining than BTC. Wonder what would happen if all miners progressively change to BCH mining
They would leave a gap on the real Bitcoin hashrate, which would mean that someone mining Bitcoin Cash would go back to mining real Bitcoin, because the difficulty would lower and the price would still be several times higher than Bitcoin Cash. That is the irony, at the end of the day Bitcoin Cash can never get anywhere near the real Bitcoin. As soon as people leave the real Bitcoin to speculate with the Bitcoin Cash hashrate, they will create a new opportunity to mine Bitcoin. It's a constantly leveling-itself system. |
|
|
|
Been observing the body language of Microsoft's owner for a while now. He seems to be too obsessed with Bitcoin...thought it was for the love of it & what it is offers... never knew he was looking for a way to strip Anonymity off Bitcoin According to an anonymous writer, Billgate's company, Microsoft just adopted two softwares called OneName and uPort for the destruction of the Anonymity Blockchain offers it users. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2099443.0I still do not fully understand why big corporations want Anonymity destroyed. Microsoft makes a ton of money by sharing information to NSA ar whatever other triple letter agencies that constantly spy on people. I mean Windows is completely closed source, when you use Windows you are just assuming that you are not getting spied (if you are naive) and you assume you are getting spied at some level if you are realistic. They make money by also targeting ads depending on your behavior just like Google does with their data farming. They present adsense ads tailored depending on what you visit and search etc. |
|
|
|
Hey,
I am right now a little bit researching about financial stability and monetary policy.
It seems that monetary policy through a central bank is pretty important for the global financial stability.
For example if there is a financial crisis, central banks try activly to stabilize the financial system.
If Bitcoin would replace fiat money and such a crisis would occur, wouldnt this lead to long term financial instability?
Monetary policies can fail or be tainted by conflicts of interests. Decentralized protocols are predictable and uncorruptable. Apart from that, no worries. Bitcoin will never replace fiat money and doesn't need to. Some form of inflationary fiat will always be required to enable economic growth. Look at Bitcoin as a store of value and as a hedge against failing monetary policies that just so happens to be usable as a currency as well. We have the same view on fiat money and cryptocurrency. Fiat money will always exist because not all people can adopt modern technology. Bitcoin and fiat money can be existing alongside each other peacefully and there is no need to replace one another. Realistically, we are still converting our Bitcoin to the local money and it can take a lot of years before there will be a mainstream mass for any cryptocurrency. Seriously speaking, I don't really understand why we have to push for the fiat money to go. We should let all forms of money exist as long as they are legal tender of a given place and there are people who are using it. It is quite a very big ambition to try to convert all people to get away from fiat money and just use cryptocurrency. We have to remember that the stores we can see down in the isles are not yet accepting Bitcoin and as of now even if they do I will never use my Bitcoin in buying anything because I am speculating that it will further grow in value. I disagree. You claim that fiat money will always exist because" not all people can adopt modern technology." Right now all you need is a cheap phone that can do SMS and you are already on the blockchain, being able to send and recieve transactions. And now we got the blockstream satellites so the coverage is pretty much global. Are you saying that in 100 years, even the poorest spots on earth will not have support for BTC transactions? because I think you are wrong. Over time, all societies on earth will have access to the blockchain. There are already cheap SMS Nokia phones all over africa, imagine in 2100 or something. The overall technological level always goes up. |
|
|
|
Hey,
I am right now a little bit researching about financial stability and monetary policy.
It seems that monetary policy through a central bank is pretty important for the global financial stability.
For example if there is a financial crisis, central banks try activly to stabilize the financial system.
If Bitcoin would replace fiat money and such a crisis would occur, wouldnt this lead to long term financial instability?
Monetary policies can fail or be tainted by conflicts of interests. Decentralized protocols are predictable and uncorruptable. Apart from that, no worries. Bitcoin will never replace fiat money and doesn't need to. Some form of inflationary fiat will always be required to enable economic growth. Look at Bitcoin as a store of value and as a hedge against failing monetary policies that just so happens to be usable as a currency as well. I try to explain to big blockers that bitcoin is better dealt as a store of value that acts as a counter-measure to an ever-inflating money (fiat) but they don't care, and want to turn bitcoin into fiat 2.0, which would make it much less valuable. The only way bitcoin can be viable as a currency is via second layer solutions like LN, not by destroying the core protocol with big blocks, because that would make it exploitable by attacking governments and global forces. Big blockers are a disgrace to the network. |
|
|
|
|
I never got the point of Trezor at leas for long term cold storage. Why would you put your bitcoins in a device that is obviously full of bitcoin? you need to be more discrete... a couple of USB sticks as backups encrypted is way better imo.
Trezor would be good to take it out and do some transactions without being exposed to viruses, but as far as long term storage goes, I would use something else. Again, you don't want to store a lot of bitcoin in a device that is basically saying "hey, I have a ton of bitcoin inside".
|
|
|
|
You can only ask 1 Question to Satoshi Nakamoto what would you ask him, her or they? and why?
Good question... what I would ask him is the obvious one (I think): Are you OK with the blocksize growing so big that only corporation can run full nodes? Isn't this directly opposite to the concept of "cash"' What solutions do you propose to scale bitcoin without centralizing the network? I think that would be it. Scaling Bitcoin is the most relevant topic. I guess I would also ask about mining but thats 2 questions. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is too small and why would elites panic from mire rich people? People are getting rich and poor on a daily basis. I think the one panicking us OP.  The elite doesn't care about people becoming a millionaire. There are tons of people that reach the $1,000,000+ mark every year. What the elite may not like is that this wealth is not registered within their reach. All these rich people in BTC that didn't register their wealth on the fiat system are, im sure, hated by the governments, they are mad because they can't control their money, tax it, confiscate at will etc. |
|
|
|
The financial elite are in panic mode over the rise of Bitcoin and the other Crypto currencies that surround it. Should they be trusted, is this a long term trend? Listen to this latest report by Gerald Celente and his team to learn the answers to these questions and much much more.Click here to watch this video:
http://geraldcelentesblog.blogspot.ca/2017/08/no-in-god-we-trust-to-trust.html I saw a video with Max Keiser and some other guy talking about geopolitics and cryptocurrency: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnTk3iy7S0gThey point out at the hypocrisy of "In God We Trust". It's like they know the system is fucked and there's no solution, so they keep propping up debt and they keep printing more and more devaluation the currency with no clear outcome but they trust God will solve it, the whole thing is ridiculous. It's too early to say they are panicking, but it's definitely on their radar. |
|
|
|
As usual people getting once it is valuable or expensive. Many countries are adapting bitcoin like japan and south korea that's why it didn't surprise me that the volume of bitcoin search in google is surging. People are curious on why some country are using bitcoin while it is just a virtual currency.
We haven't seen anything yet, it's still not that big in terms of google searches. In any way this proves why people stay poor: They only care about things when they are going up in price. You had to do your homework back when nobody was googling bitcoin, there was plenty of time after the 2013 bubble busted, but people are sheep and they will only learn about things when the rest are coming. We are going to $100,000 long term but people will forget about bitcoin during the dips/crashes instead of accumulating as the smart money does. While the rest sleep smart money works hard. |
|
|
|
The distribution scheme has changed. People will now get 10-times less Byteball for holding Bitcoins and 2-time less Byteball for holding Byteballs. The inflation will thus be much smaller now compared to the previous months.
I have been hearing this and I don't understand what they mean by "holding bitcoins". How can you hold bitcoins on the byteball wallet and get paid by doing so? If I use the signing address method how much will I get? My wallet says I have the GB that I was waiting to get transacted in the last period, so im holding byteballs on the wallet. Im now signing the remaining addresses, im going to sign all of my BTC addresses, it will take a while but I will get a decent amount of byteball next period (last period I was learning) I just don't understand what "holding bitcoins" means..? |
|
|
|
The distribution ends when all coins are distributed. Almost 53% of all coins have been distributed yet. It is also hard to predict because the distribution rules changes from time to time. However a rough prediction says that there will be six or seven more distribution rounds until the 1 million GBYTE have been distributed.
So it's at least 1 entire year of inflation for byteball? that doesn't sound good for the price. Is the release of the coins similar to bitcoin? It would be cool if we could have something like this for byteball:  shouldn't the coin distribution be predictable? I think its better than constantly changing it. |
|
|
|
|
Byteball got some interesting technology, but the distribution is clearly a problem for investors, the inflation pressure is too big, the supply gets getting expanded lowering the price. My 2 questions are:
1) When is the last distributon stage going to happen?
2) What is the final byteball supply?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
