The press release does not mention mobile phone at all. Please do not disseminate inaccurate information
i refuse to debate google translations I'm native Chinese user |
|
|
|
So the reason we went down 100's was fear of a potential China ban. Today we learn that China won't ban Bitcoin. What does everybody do? They sell.
Well done traders and sheep. Well done for being complete idiots.
 What am I missing about the unbanning of a ban that never happened in the first place? Correct. This isn't really news and doesn't create any change. Bitcoin, in fact, was never banned in China. However, banks and third party payment processors WERE banned from dealing with bitcoin exchanges, and this has not changed. Actually "ban" was never a word that the PBOC used. The bank accounts are still being shut down for violating this rule. What the news is saying is that, again, people are free to trade bitcoins and own bitcoins in China if they can find the means to do so. Exactly. If Chinese people want to buy BTC with real CNY, or sell BTC for real CNY, they can do it with service like localbitcoin. If Chinese people want to day trade, they can do it on bitstamp or btc-e. This is the best solution for all. |
|
|
|
|
The press release does not mention mobile phone at all. Please do not disseminate inaccurate information
|
|
|
|
Adding the "Net Assets" as of 14-Nov-13 (21.8 M$) and the "Estimated New Investment" column of the table since that date, I get 54.49 M$ on 10-Apr-14, which is ~13 M$ more than the "Net Assets" of the latter date. Does that mean that the current investors as a whole have lost money? (Of course those who invested before 14-Nov-13 are still positive)
Nice observation but it is not surprising. For example, for someone who bought 5818XBT above $800 on 5 Feb, a value of 2 Million USD has vaporized. |
|
|
|
到现在还是无法相信我们深爱的这片土地 这个国家 居然狠狠地拒绝了比特币
无法相信几天后我们就没法正常地在自己国家的平台上交易了 那些日子不再来了 那些群里的兄弟分享着今天的收益的日子
现在只看到一批又一批的人亏得连底裤都没了
无法相信我们国家也沦为泰国 越南之流
突然觉得自由离我们很远 一切都在国家机器的掌控之中 你無法相信, 因為你一開始就錯了. 你說你深愛這個國家? 難道你覺得這個國家深愛你嗎? |
|
|
|
Apparently they are over 100,000B now. Lots of buying last 2 days?
5867XBT net buying yesterday. Holding 101710XBT now |
|
|
|
1. We need colored coins+ natively in the Bitcoin core wallet (satoshi client) to send the message that this concept is officially supported. Bitcoin is decentralized. There is no official. If you want it so much, fork the source code and persuade people to use your branch |
|
|
|
|
No one is stealing your bitcoin. Please change your topic
|
|
|
|
I just don't understand why the nonce field is so small that requires using an extranonce in the coinbase transaction...etc... Wouldn't it have been simpler to have a large enough nonce for the purposes of hashing?
It might encourage miners to regularly add new transactions to the unsolved block, as anyway they have to change to Merkle Root after the nonce is exhausted. |
|
|
|
begin to attack the network by signaling other values in the version field— disrupting its use for forward compatibility if the usage persists.
This attack won't work as the future softfork could ignore the version field of earlier blocks I draw your attention to "if the usage persists".  The problem is if some application comes to depend on coding crazy data there then it may be difficult to get the usage to cleanly stop in order to set the flag day point for the signaling. So thats why a threat to start orphaning the things is effective: it doesn't matter if someone does it some, and if they are persistent some orphaning will make them stop before the usage becomes enshrined and breaks forward compatibility. This is not needed and is very dangerous as the chain may fork
Not may fork, will fork. And thats fine. The chain forks ~every day. Unless the crazy version numbering miner had a (near-)majority of the hashpower the forking will rapidly resolve itself— and if such a miner did have a majority hashpower we'd have worse issues to worry about. It's also possible to 'discourage' a block— reject it until its burried at least two deep, disadvantaging it, but not producing a persistent fork in the case that it were a majority hashpower. I still think this approach is risky. Let say we now decide to orphan all blocks with version > 2. Every updated nodes (not just miners) will need to update again to reverse the ban. It's like a softfork. It's similar to adding the 1MB block size limit, and now we get stuck |
|
|
|
|
tl;dr
Huobi's ICBC account will be closed on 18 Apr. They will stop using the account for deposit and withdraw on 14 Apr.
The branch manager said it is an oral order from the bank's headquarter. There is no document
|
|
|
|
You fail to take into account that these loopholes will be hard to move serious money into bitcoin.
You do know Chinese people are buying real estate in London, Canada, and Australia like crazy, don't you? Please tell me how could they do it if each Chinese citizen is only allowed to wire 50000USD out of the country each year. Please also explain how buying bitcoin could become more difficult than buying a house in Vancouver. |
|
|
|
|
With UnionPay debit card, Chinese people in a foreign country (including Macau and Hong Kong) could only withdraw foreign currency equivalent to 10000CNY (1613USD) per day. However, there is no upper limit for purchasing transactions. In Macau, Chinese people will "buy" luxurious watches in pawn shop using UnionPay debit card, and sell the watches back with 5-10% discount to the shop immediately for cash.
|
|
|
|
begin to attack the network by signaling other values in the version field— disrupting its use for forward compatibility if the usage persists.
This attack won't work as the future softfork could ignore the version field of earlier blocks If you do this I will circulate a patch to miners to orphan your blocks,
This is not needed and is very dangerous as the chain may fork |
|
|
|
Hong Kong will eventually ban bitcoin too and take bitfinex with it.
Every advisor I've spoken to has told me of all the places with bitcoin exchanges (besides China), Hong Kong was the #1 weakest place.
I was opening an account with a brokerage house in the U.S. today and even then I had to sign a "Hong Kong risk disclosure" for when I trade something in Hong Kong.
As a Hongkonger, I can tell this is completely bullshit. I bet your "advisers" can't even locate Hong Kong on a (unnamed) world map. |
|
|
|
|
Why don't the devs send an update notice with the emergency key?
|
|
|
|
ok, if you guys think it is not "double spend", let's call it "reversed transaction". That's not the main point here. what happened is that businesses did not update the clients Actually the opposite is true. OKPAY got cheated because they were using the latest client (0.  . If they did not update, they would never see the original transaction confirmed. |
|
|
|
|
It has been more than a year. I think this is the only instance of successful double spending of a 6-confirmation transaction. Have anything been done to address this problem? Comparing with those fancy applications, this involves the very fundamental principle: transaction irreversibility. If it is not fixed, I am sure it will happen again when we have another unexpected fork and the harm could be much more serious.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
