|
Some people say that Bitcoin Cash (an altcoin basically) is better than Bitcoin in many ways, but I think Bitcoin is better and always will be as it can be improved.
|
|
|
|
If I give anyone gifts these days, it would be Bitcoin. I am not normally a fan of giving money, although Bitcoin is an except as the price will go up and they will thank you in the future.  |
|
|
|
|
The only other cryptocurrency poised to replace Bitcoin, or rather overtake it in market cap we should say, is Ethereum. The only reason for this is on the basis that hundreds of companies rely on ETH to run their business, where as Bitcoin is more so of an individualized investment type of thing for many.
|
|
|
|
|
Functionally, both Bitcoin and gold are very similar in most respects. Based off of investment value and potential alone, Bitcoin is the clear winner for me though.
|
|
|
|
The much talked about ride is on, to bullish. Who is riding with it ......  I didn't support bitcoin when I learned about it 4 years ago. I admit that it was a bad decision, if I could've supported it, I would've been a millionaire today. So, now that I'm back. I'm going to support and trust bitcoin with all I can, and keep investing and holding bitcoin. Why didn't you support it, if I might ask? I always thought it was cool but never expected te price to become this high. If so, I would also have invested to become a millionaire. Oh well, lesson learned.  |
|
|
|
|
I think it is way too early to tell. See, right now there is no doubt that Bitcoin is way more corrupt than fiat is. However, fiat was also corrupt back in the days when there was less security, such as the "Wild, Wild West" therefore all I can say is as time goes on there will be less corruption in crypto and then we will be able to tell for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
Whoever at Forbes said that is probably smarter with crypto than I am, so take this with a grain of salt, but I think most likely this will not be the main factor in taking crypto mainstream. It might be a Superbowl ad or something like that.
|
|
|
|
|
I am so upset with LocalBitcoins who did not credit BCH to us when the fork happened. Shame on you!
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin approved and discovered in the world on 2009 and the first price is $0. And this the history and bitcoin table when discovered in the world from 2009.[Using USD Rate 2017] 2009 [Discovered] - 1btc = $0  2010 - 1btc = $0.1 - $0.08  2011 - 1btc = $0.75  2012 - 1btc = $9.04 2013 - 1btc = $301.20 2014 - 1btc = $753.01  2015 - 1btc = $451.81 2016 - 1btc = $828.31  2017 - 1btc = $3664.25 From this list we know bitcoin is not stable , frequently make increase and reduction on price. Is there a possibility of a decline in the price of the bitcoin future , in doing so we must make a choice better invest a bitcoin or not ? In fact there is! On July 2017, you did not include the fork that just happened which significantly reduced the rice of bitcoins down to $1950. Also, the price of bitcoins also decreased recently like 2-3 weeks ago due to China's banning of ICOs in their country. There are many factors that affect the price of bitcoins and due to its volatility, it is also very hard to predict whether there may be an increase or decrease on the short-term perspective. But the chart you provided is very accurate towards the increasing part of its price. Even though there are factors that decrease its price, it still remains that in the long-run perspective, the price of bitcoins still increase. You might want to take cognizance of the fact that the leap from $9.04 in 2012 to well over $1000 and then down to $301.20 in 2013 was orchestrated by China's massive adoption of Bitcoin and then PBoC first attempt to keep Chinese people away from it. Price eventually soared afterwards. Now it's the globe that is fast embracing and driving the price of Bitcoin up and China again have stepped in to burst the bubble. I hope there're people who can figure out that history is about to repeat itself? Yeah that information is not very accurate and doesn't represent the extreme polar growth of Bitcoin in both exponential rises and crashes. It makes it seem like the price was stable at those rates when it definitely is not the case. |
|
|
|
how could government stop bitcoin while the citizens are helped in case of financial problem. bitcoin also reduces the number of unemployment. from this point of view, bitcoin helps government in terms of welfare benefits.
The citizens have no power against a ruthless government like the USA. No matter how many weapons you hold, the army is far better supplied. If cryptos got banned there would be local rioting for a week or two, but eventually the government would stop it and do what they want. It is sad, but true. |
|
|
|
|
I must say being able to login to online banking on my phone has really made my life a LOT easier!
|
|
|
|
|
Is Bitcoin dead?
Yes, it is 100% dead. You can no longer buy it, all exchanges got hacked last night and all Bitcoins stolen around the world.
|
|
|
|
|
If we advertise on TV, it would need to be the Superbowl, as nothing else would be as epic, or even worthy to have Bitcoin as an advertisement.
|
|
|
|
Wth? That's messed up. I will never join a signature campaign managed by yahoo.
1) Random shit project: Check. 2) One liner spam: Check. 3) Genuine concern: Error 404.
Stay away from sections where the people responding all not all illiterate spammers, will ya now? Welcome to the SMAS blacklist. Until someone posts something worth responding to,
Cat out.
|
|
|
|
* Lauda takes a look at your post history. * Lauda realizes that it is being bullshitted by a one-line signature spammer. * Lauda looks for the campaign manager of Solar DAO. * Lauda adds Kaller to its own SMAS blacklist.
Until someone posts something worth responding to, Cat out. That is fine, but we never got a clear answer about yahoo. Just a one-line halfhearted comment. Are you going to condemn his delaying of payments by 26 hours and giving false negative feedback? |
|
|
|
You obviously did not read my entire post. I said your tag is 100% warranted, as it is not known if yahoo has stolen campaign funds.
You've explicitly said no such thing. Although FJ might be wrong about the stolen funds (and deserve to get tagged by you), they certainly do not deserve negative feedback simply for reporting misbehavior. Again, that is the whole point of a feedback system to begin with. You are wrong. Why no warnings to yahoo? All you have said thus far is a short one-line comment halfheartedly condemning the behavior. It is clear in the screenshot provided in my previous post the feedback is solely an act of retaliation based on absolutely nothing but the fact he got caught (by his own-self) delaying 100 members from receiving their payment. Is this something you would do? Edit: It seems yahoo has edited his original feedback after realizing he got caught. What the heck is going on here? |
|
|
|
However, yahoo clearly gave the feedback about spreading FUD long before any claim about stealing funds was made.
Are you sure? I can't see the timestamp of the rating, and it was modified and re-applied thus I can't say which happened. Lauda, even you must admit delaying payments by 26 hours due to being drunk and hungover is asking to get negative feedback.
No? That would be incompetence and bad priorities. Now, if I were to start going after signature campaign managers for their incompetence then we'd see >90% of them taken down by my ratings. Are you sure we want to be going there? Although FJ might be wrong about the stolen funds, they certainly do not deserve negative feedback simply for reporting misbehavior. Again, that is the whole point of a feedback system to begin with.
He deserves feedback for libel. You can't go around smearing someone's name as you please, especially not without any actual evidence. You obviously did not read my entire post. I said your tag is 100% warranted, as it is not known if yahoo has stolen campaign funds. However, it is not acceptable for a DT member to give negative feedback solely in retaliation, which is what yahoo did. See here. Long before any accusation. Now you are proven wrong. It would be nice to see a mod like you stand up for what is right around here for once and gain some credibility. As far as I know you ran Bitmixer's campaign very well... why do you defend such irresponsible behavior and false feedback from yahoo? |
|
|
|
Edit: This is now getting serious.
It is not. I should have been clearer. I am talking about how "actmyname" is trying to claim that yahoo's negative trust is fair due to FJ claiming that yahoo stole funds. Indeed, this is serious as yahoo clearly gave the feedback about spreading FUD long before any claim about stealing funds was made. Something deeper must be going on here as no one can be that stupid, as you say. The only reason is retaliation for the 100% deserved negative feedback he got. Lauda, even you must admit delaying payments by 26 hours due to being drunk and hungover is asking to get negative feedback. Things like this are the reason feedback exists in the first place. Although FJ might be wrong about the stolen funds (and deserve to get tagged by you), they certainly do not deserve negative feedback simply for reporting misbehavior. Again, that is the whole point of a feedback system to begin with. |
|
|
|
Not taking sides here... and I like my drinks too (see my username  ), but giving false negative feedback as a DT member can get you removed. I would tread carefully if I were you, Yahoo. Where's the falseness in stating that the user is spreading FUD? It's true. There are unfounded numbers in their claims -- stating that yahoo missed a $6000 payment when in reality the signature campaign in the first week would have paid out a maximum of just under $4k in total to all participants. No offense, but anyone can see yahoo gave that feedback before the claim about money was ever made. If you can't see that yourself, your comments hold zero weight. Edit: This is now getting serious.  I always thought yahoo was a good manager, but who gets "trashed" on the night you are supposed to send ~$5,000 to 100 people? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
