|
XT means change yes changing Bitcoin for an altcoin.
|
|
|
|
nah. I think most topics need to self moderated or if it's doing well it gets flooded with fuds and competitors.
stay away from new coins and you will never have to face any problem...stick with coins that are old
Complete bullshit, you can't entirely rate a crypto of how long it has been around, best innovations happening are the newer coins, old coins were just a bitcoin/litecoin copy past crap. innovation to sell snake oil bout the only innovative in coins the last 2 years. |
|
|
|
|
yeah tbh a few years back i was very anti self mod threads.
now though all threads are plagued with shitcoin shills and trolls so tis almost a must do; to keep a thread even half on topic.
|
|
|
|
$5816 sold on Jubi - chinese exchange, why would anyone in China be buying maxcoin? yesterday i noticed this as well
why would you have to be in china to trade on a chinese exchange? 99% of my trading is on chinese exchanges because of liquidity. |
|
|
|
I never followed this "coin x" will gain adoption mentality. there are great ideas floating around, but every coin incl bitcoin is far from gaining mainstream adoption. there's a lot of work to do.
they all lack KISS most the so called innovations just add complications. |
|
|
|
..Bitcoin is looking to me like it might fail, but that doesn't mean all cryptocurrencies are destined to follow the same path of doom.
If Bitcoin goes.. I think it would be naive NOT to think that MOST if not ALL of the cryptocoin scene will implode and not resurface for a decade or so.. You'll still have the DARK side, of course, but the mainstream will see it as a passing fad. None of the technical differences make any difference to average joe, at all. It's all Maths-FU to them anyway. .. As far as the real world is concerned : 'All Coins lead to Bitcoin.' On the other hand, if Bitcoin succeeds, as we know it can  , then I think there is a good chance that other coins will flourish. Nature of Decentralisation. Having only one coin seems pretty, well, centralised.. the idea of alt currency to gov controlled and the p2p niche are bigger then Bitcoin. seriously the real world doesn't even know bitcoin. |
|
|
|
He is right but obviously he did not think it through since when someone does a >50% attack then he would need to sell the illegally won bitcoins. Who will buy them fast enough to make the attack worth it?
Only other thing is to destroy bitcoin. That could be easily done by probably any secret agency. Hacking pools and big miners and do 51% attack. Bitcoin would be done.
The question is who would do this for what reason?
Snowden is ignorant of bitcoin. There are better ways to harm bitcoin than do a 51% attack and bitcoin has much more serious problems like scalability. It will take some time, but eventually he will transform his opinion as he is a tech savvy person. He is not that far from that... yes no need to destroy btc tis doing a fine job on its own  |
|
|
|
|
i think the idea of a p2p currency is great, and needed, currency is too important to be left in gov hands (do nothing but devalue peoples hard earned money).
however i've not seen a good implementation of the idea
hopefully though,
but yeah if we are honest to ourselves there is 10001 coins here that are of less real world value then a zimbabwe dollar.
|
|
|
|
how either is a non zero amount is beyond me  ICOs should be banned from this forum imo |
|
|
|
|
idea behind this is a good one, way to get people into crypto without expensive mining etc
and can make it fun.
|
|
|
|
this is news tons of private bots on exchanges as well. tbh same stuff in real world markets. |
|
|
|
The consensus in bitcoin is by mining majority, not developer majority. Live with it.
ya but miners have always mined whatever the devs tell them to mine.... had all the dev been in agreement with 8MB from the start miners would have upgraded no questions asked, like every other BIP that has come b4 this one. in reality no one group "controls it." miner, investors, large bitcoin entities (Exchanges, etc.. ), devs, all have alot of influence. these groups are all dependent on one another , "control" is hard to pin point. yes you can say any group has control from a certain perspective, all are dependent on each other. |
|
|
|
|
supposed coin.2 or watever are a big step backward not forward from btc
adding complication not innovation, few stupid wannabe IT nerds won't ever get that, just a ton of get rich quick tag along cause they missed the btc boat.
|
|
|
|
|
litecoin tops all alts for a good reason.......TRUST
pretty much all else is a scam.
litecoin is an improvement on bitcoin where it counts......time will show
|
|
|
|
We do not have a democracy and we certainly will never have it.
Satoshi Nakamoto designed the system in a way that the decisions are
made by the miners. He certainly thought this would enforce some kind
of democracy: Everybody could run a miner on his PC and setting up
some kind of dedicated high performance computer systems just for this
purpose should not pay out.
He was not aware of ASICs and the concentration of mining power in the
hands of a few people.
However, even if miners finally can decide what to do, there are
strong forcing for a consensus and for a conservative behaviour:
- miners who create a fork will sit alone on their chain.
- miners have to respect the technical constraints (bandwidth etc)
otherwise they are lost.
- Miners have to serve the community, otherwise the price of bitcoin
will fall and they will not make any profit (in fiat).
- Large miners depend on profits in fiat: they have expenses in
electricity, hardware cost, infrastructure, etc.
- Small miners can ignore these costs, so there is still some chance
for democracy. Be aware of your power!
The code developers do not have any power. Everybody can set up a fork
(as XT). But in order to succeed he has to achieve consensus.
To conclude: I like bitcoin very much. It is anarchy with a very
strong forcing for consensus. It now has survived for approximately 5
years. It is really interesting to see how this system will evolve
further under real world conditions. Bitcoin is in beta status and a big
experiment. I am looking forward into the future.
yup exactly,miners vote with their hashing power. Bitcoiners could vote with their funds too its just not directly built into the software. But there is no reason coinage voting couldnt exist. 2 coders want to take control, to help business buddies from like another 6 who also want to help business buddies from the miners who want profits when tis all controlled by market forces. so winning the battle may just lose them the war  |
|
|
|
another hint they are a total scam is they are ann on this forum  The forum you're constantly trolling... yes while i wait for a decent usable p2p currency to arrive  |
|
|
|
aka the lunatics running the asylum Which is your asylum of preference, kelsey? Your not another one of the Room 101 people are you?  i'm more a bitcoin is a solution looking for a problem type person |
|
|
|
another hint they are a total scam is they are ann on this forum |
|
|
|
wtf is a monero  oh yeah that one. must have slipped my mind as there's been only 20 shill threads on this the last 24hrs instead of the usual average 2990986 mindless dribble monero shillcoin threads  |
|
|
|
We don't want democracy. In democracies 10 sheeps vote is better than 9 professors. The right one is not always the most voted. I'm strongly against this proposition.
+1. We don't need democracy. We need "meritocracy". The people who knows what are they doing should decide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy+2 and we've already got one. The commits to the Bitcoin github repo are judged on their merit. By just a couple of people, who just so happen to have exercised good judgment so far. aka the lunatics running the asylum |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
