Bitcoin Forum
November 20, 2019, 07:53:42 PM *
News: 10th anniversary art contest
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 [44] 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 ... 189 »
861  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: People are Losing it, which bitcoin is the real bitcoin? on: July 23, 2018, 12:49:04 AM
We all know what the real Bitcoin is, even noobs. When you say, "how much Bitcoin is worth now against the US dollar?" we all know it's hovering $7500. That's the simple answer.

The technical answer is: the one with the most accumulate proof of work, the one backed by the most whales, the legacy chain... and so on.

Attempts to fork Bitcoin in whatever else have been blatant scams thus far. No real technological, economical sound arguments, not backed by actual coins, just nonsense.

Hodl Bitcoin, forget about the scams, and keep researching and learning, and you will be well off long term.
862  Economy / Speculation / Re: History of bitcoin crashes on: July 23, 2018, 12:21:05 AM
I had a simialr infographic but I think this one contains more crashes. It's clear that we are not going to get any worse compared to the MtGox crash. Nothing can ever re-create the very special fundamentals in which basically all of the liquidity was being held by a centralized party, a ticking nuclear timebomb that cannot happen again due tons of different exchanges existing now, even decentralized ones being developed.

We survived that one and we went from $1300 to $155 to $20,000. This is why I always find ridiculous when noobs think "Bitcoin is dead". Bitcoin just can't die, if it didn't in 2013, it just can't anymore, it's not possibly, which is why every dip is free coins, by definition.
863  Other / Meta / Re: Hope to recover my account on: July 22, 2018, 05:40:46 PM
you should also share your previous account details...


why are you having this type of negative trust Huh

is it hacked account ??






further, I have gone through your post...it is full of bounty and from post no. 378 to 667, he only has written one-word post either merlyn22 or cardbank..

There is no need for a moderator to waste your time for such an account.

Moderators often give negative trust to accounts to let people know that the account is hacked. Every time a manager wants to hire someone for a bounty they look at your trust history (or that's what I would do first if I was a manager...) so this is a way to let people know to not hire that account since it's not owned by the original owner.

There seems to be a bunch of these bounty posts with twitter and telegrams links on it but he's active on the Philippines subboard mostly and it's not a spammer judging by timestamps. I say leave this guy be and give him his account back.

However, given by the fact that better quality Hero+ posters have been waiting for months to 1+ year, I think this guy is going to be out of luck to get his account back anytime soon.
864  Other / Meta / Re: INCREASING HACKED ACCOUNT PROBLEM on: July 22, 2018, 05:11:48 PM
The problem is we have people waiting for more than 1 year after presenting all cryptographic proof asked by both mods, which leads to people bumping their own threads to get some exposure of the fact that their problem isn't solved (understandably so).

This creates an ever growing clusterfuck of a backlog of unresolved cases, the queue will keep growing for as long as the process isn't faster than the rate of hacks. At some point entire meta section will be threads of people asking to get their accounts restored, if we aren't close to that already.
865  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: Is there an operating system that syncs Bitcoin core the fastest? on: July 22, 2018, 04:49:58 PM
I don't think you can separately download the files without verification as you go, so if you want it to go faster go SSD.

And OS wise, Xubuntu is a decent compromise, it looks good, and it's on the lightweight side, should do more than well enough on a 2 year old system. On the other hand, Lubuntu is perhaps overkill, it's designed to work in really old hardware. Then agan if you don't care about super minimalist GUI's then that should do. Ubuntu is too bloaty, I always avoid using it.
866  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: How satoshi could be anonymous when he was the only full-node ? on: July 21, 2018, 06:09:53 PM
You can't get incoming connections over Tor without other peers also using Tor, that is correct.
I doubt he would've used it anyway.

Perhaps he took great care and never ran Bitcoin from home in the begging, but I doubt it.
Now that IP address he used is lost in time, but I am sure government recorded it and still have it.
It was always reasonable to assume that government knew who Satoshi is, in my opinion, once they were interested enough to find out.

I assume they started bothering him once Wikileaks started using Bitcoin to get around the banking blockade.
As far as I know, he announced he was leaving the project soon after that. Bitcoin just became too high profile.

I think someone confirmed that he was using Tor for all his online profiles, including this forum, p2pfoundation profile website, and the bitcoin mailing list originally on sourceforge website I think:

http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/profile/SatoshiNakamoto

https://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/code/1/tree//trunk/

Also to access all his emails.

To run the actual node probably VPS. I wonder what the state of VPN services was in 2009.
867  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Why can Core not Scale at a 0.X% for blocksize in the S-Curve f(X) on: July 21, 2018, 04:51:46 PM
there's no free ride, you pay a price with some % of centralization due node resource going up + more orphans
Nop. You are wrong. Centralization is not a ghost to be summoned by some spells, any claim against an improvement proposal should be analytically provable, no room for intuitions. I have refuted any such claim regarding centralization consequences of a moderate block size increase up-thread and as of block time decrease (my alternative suggestion) it has a considerable positive decentralization impact (actually in orders of magnitude).

Quote
It's not even relevant. No matter if one thinks a bigger blocksize and blocktime wouldn't centralize (I disagree,..) but anyway, the main point is, you just can't do it, how are you going reach hard fork consensus? how are you going to get all the whales on board so when the fork happens they do not dump on you, crashing the price, forcing miners to stop mining your fork? Betting against the original Bitcoin is always going to have an unreasonable amount of risk to do so, you are always going to on the losing side supporting a fork, unless you manage to make everyone and their money to agree with you somehow.
Aren't you and @Doomad same persons?  He is used to bring forward this argument whenever it comes to a change proposal.

I understand your concerns, bitcoin is no more an experimental project and everything is political here, I truly understand but I don't care. I'm sure at the end of the day we are left with nothing less or more than the truth not lies and the 'right'  not wrongs.

Any for the problem of evolution and consensus around it, I have some ideas, for now it is better to remain focused on 'the right' and 'the true', imo.





Even if you were to be right, you would need to argue this with the people that have the most influence in the ecosystem: big merchants, big miners, big whales, show them the proof, and see what the feedback is. Perhaps starting by going into MP's group chat on IRC (see Anonymint posts). Go there and show your technological arguments about why it's a good idea and post the log there.

Do the same on any other relevant place and post results. You need to be debating this in these places, besides in here, otherwise it just stay as what you think it's a good idea, but not ever implemented.
868  Economy / Speculation / Re: Can bitcoin break the $8000 margin before month end? on: July 21, 2018, 01:27:20 PM
We failed the last attempt to go above that resistance line of around $7800-ish but we are still on the $6k+ safe spot. We may dip a bit again for another attempt or we may just go for it again in the following hours. The hourly chart looks prime for another attempt to me. Have some fiat just in case you can get another nice dip at $6700 or so.

We will break this before the ETF situation gets resolved, it's too many days away and the resistance levels are too close.
869  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Why can Core not Scale at a 0.X% for blocksize in the S-Curve f(X) on: July 21, 2018, 12:14:08 AM
It's not even relevant. No matter if one thinks a bigger blocksize and blocktime wouldn't centralize (I disagree, there's no free ride, you pay a price with some % of centralization due node resource going up + more orphans) but anyway, the main point is, you just can't do it, how are you going reach hard fork consensus? how are you going to get all the whales on board so when the fork happens they do not dump on you, crashing the price, forcing miners to stop mining your fork? Betting against the original Bitcoin is always going to have an unreasonable amount of risk to do so, you are always going to on the losing side supporting a fork, unless you manage to make everyone and their money to agree with you somehow.
870  Economy / Economics / Re: US Congressman gets paid to trash Bitcoin on: July 20, 2018, 05:05:14 PM
It reminds me of that case that I read about couple weeks back. In short, he Polish government paid youtubers to create an anti-crypto campaign in the media. It was a decent sum, more than 25k USD.
This is just another case of of companies having politicians in their pockets. It's good that corruption got exposed once again, but bad that he's not going to have to pay for this in any way. A politician that is lobbying for a business should be stripped of rank, covered in tar and feathers and kicked out of congress.

That was a couple of months ago if im not mistaken. Several youtubers were paid in some sort of FUD campaign, pretty revealing of how governments are trying to shift the popular opinion to be anti crypto.

I believe in other countries there other similar campaigns using social media influencers to do the same thing. Youtube is definitely a big weapon these days, so are twitter and other big virtual megaphones, governments will not hesitate to pay them to spread their agenda.

Then again, this is not new and im not surprised. The private sector pays influencers to do this too, the government is no different, except it's being done with our tax money.
871  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Why can Core not Scale at a 0.X% for blocksize in the S-Curve f(X) on: July 20, 2018, 04:37:46 PM
Yeah, I think Satoshi was smart enough to foresee this and he could've implemented the Core with 2MB or 4MB of blocksize himself but I think we knew back then that this would cause more harm than good so he stayed at 1MB and I think this is great as we dont need a cryptocurrency that is handled like fiat money where some big players controll the wealth of many many people. Bitcoin was created to give the people their wealth back because they work for it every day 9-5....

Some say satoshi expected consensus to be eventually reached in order to raise the blocksize, which seems pretty naive in retrospect, since it is clear now that it's almost impossible to reach said consensus, and most likely we are stuck with 1MB.

Other's say that this was completely expected by satoshi, and he knew perfectly well that the 1MB limit was set in stone, and this is just part of the Bitcoin game theory, so it can be immutable, while remaining open source and so on.

We will never know what his true intentions were, what do we know now is, no increases of the block size are going to happen anytime soon.
No matter what Satoshi did or said or intended to do, whatever. An increase in block size is not recommended because it won't help decentralization. I don't say it would escalate centralization (like what Core falsely claimed during the debate), it is just not helpful.

Instead I support block time decrease because of its proportional desired impact on decentralization.

Anyway, it is very important to understand, scalability is not addressable by either approaches because of nonlinearities involved, both should be considered like some complementary improvement.

Block time modifications would screw up other things too. I don't think it would make a difference. Do you have any models with numbers that show it would improve without tradeoffs?

And nontheless it would require a hardfork. At the end of the day it's not even about a blocksize change but the hardfork itself. There will always be some people disagreeing about it which will lead to the creation of another altcoin.
872  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Why can Core not Scale at a 0.X% for blocksize in the S-Curve f(X) on: July 20, 2018, 02:44:01 PM
Yeah, I think Satoshi was smart enough to foresee this and he could've implemented the Core with 2MB or 4MB of blocksize himself but I think we knew back then that this would cause more harm than good so he stayed at 1MB and I think this is great as we dont need a cryptocurrency that is handled like fiat money where some big players controll the wealth of many many people. Bitcoin was created to give the people their wealth back because they work for it every day 9-5....

Some say satoshi expected consensus to be eventually reached in order to raise the blocksize, which seems pretty naive in retrospect, since it is clear now that it's almost impossible to reach said consensus, and most likely we are stuck with 1MB.

Other's say that this was completely expected by satoshi, and he knew perfectly well that the 1MB limit was set in stone, and this is just part of the Bitcoin game theory, so it can be immutable, while remaining open source and so on.

We will never know what his true intentions were, what do we know now is, no increases of the block size are going to happen anytime soon.
873  Economy / Speculation / Re: Can bitcoin break the $8000 margin before month end? on: July 20, 2018, 02:26:50 PM
$8000 is not even that relevant, we just need to break through $7800 which is the next long term resistance ceiling as seen by the line crossing all the previous peaks of the past 6 months. If we break this, then chain reaction kicks in and we break through $8000 which will make it keep going higher. The ETF will only speed up this process, but it seems to be sealed already nonetheless. I see a lot of people in governments nervous lately FUDding hard. They may sense a big rise happening soon. This one was hilarious:

https://www.trustnodes.com/2018/07/19/congressman-brad-sherman-asks-cryptonian-stop-exposing-hypocrisy
874  Economy / Speculation / Re: Digital Currency Group's Silbert says bitcoin has 'hit the bottom on: July 20, 2018, 02:08:05 PM
Actually upon TA research I see a big resistance line on $7800 ish. If we can get to $8000 we may see a lot of people turning bullish, enough to at least dodge further dipping if the ETF hype doesn't hold up. TO see this line, simply draw a line that touches the $13070 peak on January 21th, $11642 on March 5th, $9948 on May 5th, and you will see the next ceiling is around $7770, so if we can break that, we may keep mooning and this may solidify a bottom. With the ETF approved it will moon harder but irrespective of it its approved or not this may be the bottom after all.
875  Economy / Speculation / Re: Digital Currency Group's Silbert says bitcoin has 'hit the bottom on: July 19, 2018, 06:45:07 PM
Even if I dislike this guy because he was one of the scammers involved in the segwit 2x clusterfuck of last year, I would like him to be right, but at the same time, I would like him to be wrong. If the price goes lower, you get to own more BTC, which in the long term is desirable since the USD is screwed, but at the same time I cannot deny the dopamine rush of seeing the BTC price skyrocket to new heights, specially to see the idiots claiming it was dead and going 0 react to it once again. Nothing better than to see haters being proven wrong.

If there is no ETF approval we may dip again, there may be expectation about it driving the price, or maybe this is just irrelevant and we've hit the bottom nonetheless. A lot of people may sell the news once the ETF doubt gets resolved, only to see it keeps going higher, if the bottom has been set irrespective of the outcome.
876  Economy / Speculation / Re: ETF approving in August, how much will affect the price? on: July 19, 2018, 06:33:50 PM
I think saying "anyone" is a bit misleading. Correct me if im wrong, but you are going to need to invest 25 BTC minimum with this ETF, so it's not designed for the average joe, only for people that are probably millionaires already. Of course, this doesn't change the very bullish news, since the % of millionaires are the % that owns most of the wealth anyway.

I recently made a thread analyzing the price of Gold before the ETF and after the ETF, and how it looks exactly as Bitcoin does now right before the ETF, which would coincide and confirm the triple bottom scenario as the definitive bottom before the next big pump.

Maybe that "anyone" is a bit misleading, it actually applies on people who have 401K ( A 401K is a retirement savings plan sponsored by an employer. It lets workers save and invest a piece of their paycheck before taxes are taken out. Taxes aren't paid until the money is withdrawn from the account ), IRA (An individual retirement account is an investing tool individuals use to earn and earmark funds for retirement savings ), or an investment account. I am not sure where you get 25 BTC minimum investment, i read also something about that before, maybe somebody can do a little better clarify on that?

Regarding gold, it is interesting comparison but gold is too different from BTC in many ways. It would be great to BTC went the same way as gold, and who knows, maybe even become more successful in the end Smiley


I dont think it will pump immediately, but approvement will signal the new era. An era that can take us into 50000 range. I just think it wont happen over night but gradually. I think in the next 4 years

Probably not as you say, if CBOE application be accepted next month, investments will be available in the first quarter of next year. Anyway, on the wings of such a positive news BTC price should rise, but only in case that ETF be accepted.


Shares are valued at 25 per share, so that is the minimum amount you could invest wtih this ETF if im not mistaken:

Quote
One interesting thing that the request for VanEck SolidX BTC Trust was already made earlier. Twice, in fact, and both applications for a license were rejected last year, in March. Back then, SEC claimed that the market is completely unregulated, and they just couldn’t allow it with a situation like that. Now, things are different, and the same request came once again.

Each of the shares would be valued at 25 BTC, and SolidX Bitcoin Shares would be the only ones that would be traded. This is what the VanEck SolidX Bitcoin Trust is proposing. The unfortunate thing is that the investors will not receive this as a trading option even if the approval does arrive. At least not until the beginning of 2019.


Read more at http://globalcoinreport.com/sec-receives-yet-another-bitcoin-etf-license-request/

So basically, have $185k at current prices ready to invest if you want to get in this ETF.
I don't expect anyone worth less than a million USD to get involved, that's 36 million people out there.

Also no availability until next year.
877  Economy / Economics / Re: US Congressman gets paid to trash Bitcoin on: July 19, 2018, 04:12:05 PM
The irony is Allied paying Brad Sherman who said Bitcoin is used for illegal activities. While the company itself had a problem years ago for illegal activities, for money laundering. Oh yeah, Bitcoin is disruptive, people have double standards?

http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/August10/Payment%20Processors%20Forfeiture%20Settlement%20PR.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20150423010101/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-237229715.html

And yet it continues being the biggest donator, this time because Bitcoin poses an obvious risk for these Allie Wallet scammers. It is insane how this is legal. I mean the guy is there live on TV talking on behalf of the US and the so called well being of the potential investors that would be interested in crypto and he is basically shilling a product being paid to do so, WHILE trashing a product that could be a very healthy competition against the product he is shilling. This is simply nuts, but then again, this is what politics are, just puppets for sale at the biggest bidder, using the excuse of the well being of the population in order to pump and dump stuff. Im sure there are some good politicians with good intentions out there, but unfortunately it seems the ones that end up at the highest positions somehow always end up bribed to pitch the obligatory corporate scam.
878  Economy / Speculation / Re: Monthly USD returns since 2011 on: July 19, 2018, 02:47:34 PM
It is simple dollar cost averaging (DCA) don't work in Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrencies, this types of investments cannot be maximize just by buying it at any price and sitting on it as it is volatile meaning there are many good entry points when buying it. This chart where they show that we buy at the first day of the month and sell and turn out on a loss in the last day of the month shows us that there are many good window of opportunity by waiting at the best price possible during those months. If you really value your money waiting for the right time to buy is your best option. Some even consider shorting all their holdings if they want to have more at a cheaper price.

Sure, if you are able to mine tops and bottoms, you make a lot of money (minus taxes) the problem is, timming these is extremely difficult and you may get stuck in a bad position. By studying the data, it shows that you would have had good profits by simple monthly dollar cost averaging the market and holding all the BTC. You also save from the stress of having to constantly monitor the market which is very time consuming and most people can't afford doing that.

I think dollar cost average makes sense for most of the population which most likely are stuck in wage-slaving jobs which consume most of their time, not allowing them to take sound decisions which would require a clear head and free time, and I can understand they would rather rest than do that.
879  Economy / Economics / US Congressman gets paid to trash Bitcoin on: July 19, 2018, 02:32:13 PM


Basically, this man to got paid by a credit card processor company (the biggest donation he's had) in order to trash Bitcoin because they know that if Bitcoin keeps gaining terrain it would displace their business. Of course and once again, nothing to do with them trying to protect idiots whom "will get burned by bitcoin".

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bitcoin-crock-politician-received-biggest-180229189.html?guccounter=1

880  Economy / Speculation / Re: Triple bottom: yes or no on: July 19, 2018, 02:10:57 PM
Looks like this scenario of the triple bottom is playing out rather accurately:



Next stop should be somewhere around the $10k mark:



If we are able to cross $10k, everyone that is still in denial should be turning a bull, since you can't no longer call that a dead cat bounce. The road towards a new all time high would begin.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 [44] 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 ... 189 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!