|
Boycotting merchants that use Bitpay is meaningless. From the merchants' perspectives it would just be "the 0.5% of our payments that are in Bitcoin has decreased to 0.2%. It's not worth going through the trouble of having it as a payment option anymore, let's remove it".
|
|
|
|
wow so poloniex cant be trusted? I thought it was the biggest altcoin exchanger. so where are we going to trade now? bittrex? what other sites are good?
there are some trusted exchange sites such as yobit, and ccex. Both is really enough for every one in here.  a lot of the major sites are turned to the shady site. If YoBit is looking like a trustworthy site then we're really venturing into unknown territories of shadiness right now. Ideally, use Bittrex. If you've done due diligence on another exchange it might be acceptable but I can't think of many good ones off the top of my head. |
|
|
|
|
Domain redirects to .me - bad sign.
Owner not a public figure - bad sign.
No ANN thread that I can find - bad sign.
Domain registered only 2 years ago and is registered from Russia - potentially bad sign.
Previous scam accusation against them - very bad sign.
Stick to wallets where you own your coins and exchanges that are regulated (Bitstamp).
|
|
|
|
Why is Jonald Fyookball's opinion so important these days? Who is he or she? I cannot see why any of the sides will ever come together... no matter what they say in open letters. The miners are driven by greed.... NO scaling benefit them now, because they can milk the users for higher fees and nothing will change their minds. We {full node} users make decisions based on the quality of the code.... not who these people are.  Miners do have an incentive to scale - their incentive is to avoid screwing up the network and stopping people from sending transactions. Each scaling solution has some level of support from miners because what they perceive to be their own interests often varies. There's no accurate way to judge what's in the miners' best interests. If they do nothing they screw themselves over. Obviously they can milk a lack of scaling for a long time but not forever. |
|
|
|
look, there are new hedge funds forming with big money to invest in crypto - they won't put it all in BTC, so diversification makes sense
I think the hedge funds will pump coins to high levels - but I know the hedgies short as well, so taking profits along the way will be prudent
You're only proving the point that newbs have been duped by false "diversification", lol. Let's check back next year and see how that worked out, shall we? Depends when you're diversifying. If you're doing it now that the market has just rose a million times over, you're probably an idiot. If you diversified a month ago when the altcoins' caps were dramatically less, you were probably pretty clever. Obviously if the Bitcoin price goes up dramatically in a year you'll be laughing at people who diversified even at the right time, but that wouldn't mean they were wrong to do so. The actual risk:reward ratio of keeping all your money in Bitcoin might have been terrible. |
|
|
|
|
Number of near 100% reliable exchanges: zero.
Bitcoin and altcoin exchanges are very poorly regulated, which means that everyone is extremely wary of selective scams, "hacks" "DDoS attacks" (Poloniex) and other withdrawal problems, shady activity and terrible customer service. All of these things are painfully common.
I can tell you which exchanges are safest for now: for altcoins, use Bittrex. For Bitcoin/fiat, use Bitstamp or maybe Coinbase.
|
|
|
|
|
Poloniex and Bittrex don't need documents if you're withdrawing small amounts. Poloniex, for example, has a limit of $2000 equivalent withdrawal per day without documents.
If you want an exchange with decent volume, Poloniex and Bittrex are your main choices.
However, recently people have complained about Polonoex's shady activity, including "DDoS attacks" which didn't prevent certain people's market activity.
You're probably best off going to Bittrex. However, it's important never to assume that your funds are 100% safe i a Bitcoin related exchange and only keep on what you need at the time.
|
|
|
|
|
Good thing that no one cares. There are hundreds of completely worthless alts with market caps of >$1,000,000 even if their trading volume is just a few thousand. All it takes is a meaninglessly large supply.
Plus, hate to break it to you but Ripple barely counts.
No single altcoin is even halfway to Bitcoin, and even if they overtook it no one should care.
|
|
|
|
|
Nah, it's a terrible scam. Not clever in the slightest. If you look up those key people on their page you'll realise that the only picture of each of them that's on the Internet is the one that bitcoingrowthfund posted on their site.
Also, whois shows that their domain was registered in September last year and they only registered it for a year, to expire in September this year.
That's the kind of extremely basic research you should be doing before throwing your information away.
|
|
|
|
|
CPU miner, cloud mining, matrix systems, faucets - so basically, it's a website to encourage newbies to participate in scams and/or waste their time?
|
|
|
|
I can feel the hatred of XRP among the bitcoin zealots here. One day they will learn, that a fixed supply currency that's value is based on artificial scarcity, won't have a very successful future Nor will a banker's currency attempting to imitate a cryptocurrency despite the centralised supply and existence of pegged tokens. I'm no "Bitcoin zealot", but XRP is irrelevant to how Bitcoin does. It's not a cryptocurrency and even its market cap is nowhere close to Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is volatile in terms of US Dollars. My point to dinofelis is: So what? Why is that a problem?
Another question for dinofelis: Why do people/businesses accept US Dollars in the first place?
It's a problem because US dollars, in this case, are representing what items you would be able to buy with Bitcoin as they're a relatively stable thing to compare it against. Bitcoin's volatility against USD means that it won't be practical for regular transactions until the amount of money that people hold in it has stabilised. Indeed, it is somewhat delusionally to think that if some asset in a liquid market has high volatility as expressed in a major fiat, such as the US dollar, it is the dollar that is fluctuating and not the asset. In the relatively short term, big fiat are very stable units of account (unless something quite spectacular happens) in the sense that a quantity of this fiat represents a constant market value of commodities, whether it is bread, computers, cars, bananas, coffee, theatre tickets, or... other stable currencies. Of course, and that was I think the essence of cryptoanarchists' remark, this is somewhat self-referential. But in the end, it doesn't matter. If you can buy about the same amount of Big Macs, bread, tooth brush, cars, bananas etc... with, directly, or after exchanging it for another currency, it HAS a stable value. Because in the end, value, that is an amount of Big Macs, bread, tooth brush, cars and bananas. In the very long run, fiat currencies are less good units of account ; but then, not much is, because the notion itself of "same value" in remote and totally different economies is ill defined. How do you compare the value of, say, a dagger in the 7th century with something today ? But a thing even used as a major currency, that doesn't have a price-stabilizing mechanism, will NEVER stabilize, simply because of the variable economic activity, and the variable velocity of money in Fisher's formula: Q.P = M . V From which: P = M . V / Q, the price level depends on V and on Q. V depends heavily on the hoarding habits of people, and Q depends on the economic activity. If M is a hard number, it will never be stable. Especially if a large part of M is being hoarded, and V is very sensitive to the small amount of non-hoarded coins. If there's a feedback mechanism from P to M, which is what central banks do, then this can stabilize P. If no such mechanism is known, P will be very dependent on V and Q. You're going a little off the rails, blindly accepting economic formulas. Here's an interesting article about bitcoin volatility that proves you wrong: http://woobull.com/bitcoin-volatility-will-match-major-fiat-currencies-by-2019/The way that you're measuring volatility is extremely one-dimensional. As you can clearly see if you look at the actual charts instead of arbitrary measurements of day by day volatility, you'll realise that the US dollar's fluctuation is held fairly consistently around the same range. Bitcoin's fluctuation is based on trends because the price is only about how much people are willing to pay in order to hold the coin. Sure, you can say that Bitcoin is becoming less volatile, but in the last few weeks it's rose from about $1200 to about $1800. The US dollar's changes have been barely noticeable. It's just not a comparable type of volatility. |
|
|
|
Some have no other way - they have to pay. Special. If the computer on which all information for work is stored is infected. The guide will not understand your explanations that the computer is infected. They need the result
Paying is not a solution as mentioned before. I understand that it might feel like you have no other option, but look at it from this point -> If you have been willing to pay once, why wouldn't you pay for a second time? Perhaps for a third time? Those that are desperate enough and end up paying, have important files to safe, and exactly that puts them in a very easy to extort position. Well hackers do tend to actually decrypt your files after you've paid the ransom, simply because if they didn't do it then no one would pay in the future. So think of it this way. If I hack someone's computer and they have no recent backups, they will pay the ransom. After they've paid the ransom, what's the first thing that they're going to do? Backup their files, obviously. Lessons can be learned and then they don't have to deal with paying ransoms in the future. All that matters is that they learn from the experience, so they wouldn't pay it a second time, or a third time, or a fourth time. |
|
|
|
what would be the motivation for doing that? (what would they want to achieve)
The dominance of their own fiat currency so that they can regulate it better, pull in taxes and more. The German central bank has already warned people against buying Bitcoin - kind of like how ants would warn people not to use pesticide, as I saw someone saying. |
|
|
|
They also found the backdoor on the virus so maybe not all of the infected individuals or institution paid any ransom to the hacker. Or maybe they just totally do a full re-install of the infected pc's because they don't want to pay ransom money. I think with this kind of malicious intent, the general public now will be very vigilant and will not click on any link they see on the internet.
They don't need to click on suspicious links to be susceptible to the virus. The virus can infect basically any computer that hasn't downloaded the Windows patch MS17-010 from a couple of months ago. The lesson is, update and back up often. |
|
|
|
At the 1st ETF btc fall 1350 to 850, 450$ lower.
So could we expect 1300$ this time ?
The price didn't drop that far for any reasonable amount of the time. Very soon after it was hanging around $1100 again - I think people just attached far too much importance to a barely relevant event, especially considering there was nearly no chance of it being approved anyway. This time the chance of it being approved is as close to zero as it could possibly be and even traders, as stupid as some of them are, will notice this. It won't have much of an effect on the price at all. |
|
|
|
Comparing fiat to crypto is apples to oranges. Replacing one fiat with another is not the same thing as replacing fiat with a non-government currency. I think you are arguing details and failing to see the point.
Your emission scheme is just that - a scheme. Why would you want to peg to something you want to replace? That doesn't make sense. My guess is you're an older fellow who just can't wrap your head around life without the USD.
It takes years of brainwashing, like majoring in Economics-style-brainwashing, to think deflationary currencies are bad and elastic money supplies are good. Its the foolishness, if not downright insanity, of thinking that there is a magic algo or philosopher kings who can decide what the volume and value of money should be on any given day rather than leaving it to the market.
Right, let's just get this straight. The US dollar is not volatile compared to Bitcoin. Furthermore, the volatility in the day that it has typically varies around the same price range, while Bitcoin can swing by huge percentages in the course of a few days. People here can imagine a life without USD, but that's just it: imagining. It will take time because Bitcoin's volatility is based on people's confidence, which is not as high as it will be yet. Sure, it's not 100% accurate (the Big Mac Index is pretty close), but it's a damn good way to determine what the value and spending power of your Bitcoin is and what it has been in the few years that it's existed for. Bitcoin is volatile in terms of US Dollars. My point to dinofelis is: So what? Why is that a problem? Another question for dinofelis: Why do people/businesses accept US Dollars in the first place? It's a problem because US dollars, in this case, are representing what items you would be able to buy with Bitcoin as they're a relatively stable thing to compare it against. Bitcoin's volatility against USD means that it won't be practical for regular transactions until the amount of money that people hold in it has stabilised. |
|
|
|
|
It's always interesting to see the mainstream press showing ignorance about niches that you're a part of. Makes you wonder if the things you've read about other niches are wrong as well.
I mean, when they claim that a rise in price is fuelling an increase in crime even though the thieves nearly always take a ransom denominated in fiat, that's when you know the mainstream press is completely ignorant.
|
|
|
|
The replacer inherently CAN'T have the same pricing stability as the currency it is replacing. [/u] The former has to rise against the latter which includes against items priced in the latter.
Of course not. In Europe, many currencies were replaced by the Euro, and the Euro didn't "rise" against these currencies to replace them. The Euro got more and more participants, and replaced bigger and bigger markets, as new countries adopted the Euro, but the Euro didn't "rise" against these other currencies. Imagine that an imaginary bitcoin was emitted at against, say, $1 in the beginning, and that it had an emission scheme to keep it around $1. (my proposal is to have proof of work that is about $1 worth, and can do as much proof of work as you want and emit as many coins as you want with that: if you are willing to burn about a million $ worth in proof of work, you own now a million coins ; if you want to burn a billion $ worth of PoW, you now own a billion coins). Suppose that people like it, and start using it more and more. Slowly, it starts to replace payments about everywhere. The extra demand for the currency, to be able to use it (Fisher's formula) would make it rise in value, but that makes it more interesting to mine it, and it costs about the value of $1 to mine it, so people will mine a lot of it until it lowers again to near $1 value. If it is less than $1 in value, nobody will spend PoW on it to make more of them, and none get emitted. But if more people use them, more and more coins are in circulation. The monetary mass, the market cap rise, and they replace soon most payments. But nobody can get rich with it. It is a currency. Its value is stable (the value of about $1 of proof of work). You can write a contract in it. You know its value will remain stable (at least, will not deflate like crazy and become a rare collector's item). Comparing fiat to crypto is apples to oranges. Replacing one fiat with another is not the same thing as replacing fiat with a non-government currency. I think you are arguing details and failing to see the point. Your emission scheme is just that - a scheme. Why would you want to peg to something you want to replace? That doesn't make sense. My guess is you're an older fellow who just can't wrap your head around life without the USD. It takes years of brainwashing, like majoring in Economics-style-brainwashing, to think deflationary currencies are bad and elastic money supplies are good. Its the foolishness, if not downright insanity, of thinking that there is a magic algo or philosopher kings who can decide what the volume and value of money should be on any given day rather than leaving it to the market. Right, let's just get this straight. The US dollar is not volatile compared to Bitcoin. Furthermore, the volatility in the day that it has typically varies around the same price range, while Bitcoin can swing by huge percentages in the course of a few days. People here can imagine a life without USD, but that's just it: imagining. It will take time because Bitcoin's volatility is based on people's confidence, which is not as high as it will be yet. Sure, it's not 100% accurate (the Big Mac Index is pretty close), but it's a damn good way to determine what the value and spending power of your Bitcoin is and what it has been in the few years that it's existed for. |
|
|
|
What I hear in conversation when Bitcoin price is low: "You're still doing Bitcoin stuff? Didn't Bitcoin die last year?"
Text messages I get when Bitcoin is at an ATH: "Hey do you think now is a good time to buy Bitcoin? How much should I buy?"
People are so dumb. Everyone espouses the oversimplified "buy low, sell high", but whenever people are actually trying to put it into practice they just ignore the prospect. The option for them to buy Bitcoin is always right there in front of their face if they just researched the technology instead of looking at the short term price. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
