A lot of people get paid on Thursdays or the 15 of every month. It has zero impact.
You're not getting it. There is likely to be a larger-than-usual fiat infusion into crypto-markets coming up on or around the 18th of Jan and Feb. Fuck it. I'll shut up.Let's see how things play out and see for ourselves. Yes |
|
|
|
I am not sure if everyone has noticed about the high transaction charge I mean network fee to use bitcoin I think this will create negative impact as noone will be willing to pay such a huge transaction charge and if things go this way then I dont think bitcoin will ever be used as a mode of payment and also traction itself takes too long which is not the case with Litecoin or Ripple.This is the first time I am feeling skeptical about the future of bitcoin whether bitcoin will be used with such high charge or people will just switch to better altcoins
Do more research on ripple and you will find it is centralised and the tokens were premined and the company behind Ripple own most of the xrp tokens which they created out of thin air. Buy them and you are a mug (yes you might sell to a greater fool though. good luck with it). However your concerns about bitcoin are valid. IMO Dash is the better altcoin. though bitcoin cash seems to be the default |
|
|
|
|
Just looked at one of my old threads. The pink line won. Who'd have thunk? Maybe I should do a corresponding 2018 one?
|
|
|
|
Not something else. Dash wants to be a digital currency. A cash system. Monero wants to be a privacy coin. That's a big difference. Dash is not aiming to be a privacy coin. It just offers such a feature as an additon that you can use or not.
There is no monero dash fight. That impression comes from the number of people comparing the privacy aspect of both coins creating wrong impression that the two coins play on a same level somehow which they do not. And there are the constant monero trolls resitant we have which like to post monero in dash for eighter their personal relief or for monero advertising. Dash do not care a bit about monero. It is one sided. You should be clear about what you invest in.
Yes I am aware of that, but I am also aware that Dash has effectively a faulty privacy system, yet it's been promoted, at least in the past as a privacy coin. Literally it was named dark-coin in the past. I was pointing out that that is a little bit dishonest, Dash has very weak privacy, and promoting it as a privacy coin is dishonest and misleading potential privacy demanding users. Monero has a central point of failure, which is it's encryption scheme, which might turn out one day to be weak, being deanonymized by QC or a crypto bug. Still, despite that, Monero still has a better privacy, and a lower risk probability. So if you want privacy go to Monero. I just want to make money at this point so I bought both. I think Dash has a great potential to get into the top 5. It will probably be a fight between BCH and DASH. Monero is so private you never can tell if someone is minting their own coins via an exploit or bug   Dash has very effective privacy. Coin mixing is totally adequate for the job. Dash has a treasury, governance, and instant send Digital Cash |
|
|
|
This made me chuckle. Please tell me I'm wrong, or it doesn't matter, or whatever. Explain me why I'm wrong or it doesn't matter, or whatever it is.
Thank you.
Who gives a shit? He openly admits he understands nothing about it. Same goes for most of these talking heads. They could well turn out to be right anyway or pathetically wrong. If you're sensible you extract a certain amount at a certain price anyway and the rest is all fun. I think the old codger lost his edge. Missed crypto, doesn't understand it. Feels a bit butt hurt. |
|
|
|
I actually would regard using LN as the natural progression of scaling up peer to peer payments. Consider that much of the peer to peer traffic on the internet itself which we used to have has moved more to peer - "cloud" - peer system.
Good parallel. Can't remember the last time I used a torrent program to get data.
... but if some data should get censored everywhere from "cloud peer" systems, it would spread through torrents like wildfire. That is, base blockchain transfers will always be an option, no matter what. Not sure if I understood that correctly but if I did, I could view torrents being replaced by cloud services as a regression from a decentralised system back towards a more centralised one. Cloud services are provided by a small number of large companies. You're right. I expressed my thought clumsily. By "good parallel" I meant to make a point with those that are afraid LN means more centralization. It will also reduce costs, as peer-cloud-peer systems do: most peers don't need to keep seeding the torrent. Anyway I still find torrents useful.
I also still use them, even if they're not that fashionable anymore. What I failed to convey is that they will still be ready to use, and back in high demand, if (when!) circumstances (censorship) will make them necessary again. But anyway, thanks for a civilised response. I prefer reasoned debate than being told to fuck off.
Oh, well, fuck off then. (J/k hehe...) Sometimes being told to fuck off isn't that bad. JJG chose a nice big colourful font for it the other day which I quite liked. lol |
|
|
|
The graphic tries to show how funding a channel is like funding a 'hot wallet'. A more accurate description is that funding a channel is like depositing money with a bank.
Explain why you think that statement is true, and I will explain why you are wrong. The graphic showed nodes which would be represented by the likes of Amazon, Bitcoin Exchanges and Banks as 'Massively connected Hubs'. Opening a channel with a massivly connected hub like Amazon, a bitcoin Exchange or a bank is more like depositing money with a bank than sending some bitcoin to another wallet, (a hot wallet if you like). I don't know how to explain it more clearly than that. Feel free to show me why I'm wrong. I'm often wrong about a great many things The graphic tries to show how funding a channel is like funding a 'hot wallet'. A more accurate description is that funding a channel is like depositing money with a bank.
Explain why you think that statement is true, and I will explain why you are wrong. Afbitcoins is a Bcash shill/shit noob. Where do you even get that from? Being a sceptic of offchain scaling immediately makes you a bcash shill/shit noob ?? I don't follow that logic. Therefore I conclude you are a ripple noob shit turnip brain. If you must know I have a little bcash left over that I haven't sold. But mostly I'm not invested in it currently. I reserve the right to add more to my portfolio if I like, I still don't think that would make me a bitcoin cash, sorry bcash noob/ shit all shit noob. whatever. Get some facts before you spout shit |
|
|
|
a very good coin is a pity the course is being trampled on the spot now
Dash has a tendency to rise when least exspected... And even with this correction Dash is sitting not too far from its own all time highs in fiat terms. |
|
|
|
I warned you Dash would become obsolete digital trash if it didn't stop prioritizing marketing over development. And now that sorry fate has come to pass.
Thankfully I ignored your warning, my Dash portfolio has outperformed my bitcoin portfolio by a huge amount. Don't worry I am invested in bitcoin too just in case going down the offchain centralised banking pathway turns out to be most profitable. |
|
|
|
I sold dash 3 weeks ago. I do not see a tangible profit in the near future
The Dash community is in denial about three key issues preventing Dash from being competitive with other crypto. 1. Lightning is here and working, but DashHoles are still pretending it's vaporware because Dash lacks segwit and thus can't make payment channels. 2. Evolution is years behind schedule and we have yet to see a single tangible deliverable resulting from the lavishly funded DashCoreClub's supposed development efforts. 3. Dash is entirely centralized regardless of Masternode voting because Evan and DashCoreClub still have the final say on implementing code (as well as sudden rebranding and arbitrary emission cuts). For now ignoring the fact that Lightning Network is a banking layer to be plonked on top of bitcoin. Lightning is here and working? where? "Banking layer?" LOL, no, that's not how any of this works. You aren't very well-informed about current events and modern technology, are you? Lightning Network is all over the globe. See here: https://explorer.acinq.co/#/You should pay more attention to Dash's competition, even if it means finding out that Dash has lost the race to be digital cash to Bitcoin and Bcash. You probably also didn't know MAST, which makes Dash even more obsolete, is going to be live before we see a public Evolution testnet. Read it and weep! https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/the-next-step-to-improve-bitcoin-s-flexibility-scalability-and-privacy-is-called-mast-1476388597/Please try to keep up with the rest of the class so we don't have to stop for these remedial crypto lessons. Oh you mean its working on a test net. (I clicked the link) You made it sound like it was actually being used. By the way. FU troll. |
|
|
|
I sold dash 3 weeks ago. I do not see a tangible profit in the near future
The Dash community is in denial about three key issues preventing Dash from being competitive with other crypto. 1. Lightning is here and working, but DashHoles are still pretending it's vaporware because Dash lacks segwit and thus can't make payment channels. 2. Evolution is years behind schedule and we have yet to see a single tangible deliverable resulting from the lavishly funded DashCoreClub's supposed development efforts. 3. Dash is entirely centralized regardless of Masternode voting because Evan and DashCoreClub still have the final say on implementing code (as well as sudden rebranding and arbitrary emission cuts). For now ignoring the fact that Lightning Network is a banking layer to be plonked on top of bitcoin. Lightning is here and working? where? |
|
|
|
I actually would regard using LN as the natural progression of scaling up peer to peer payments. Consider that much of the peer to peer traffic on the internet itself which we used to have has moved more to peer - "cloud" - peer system.
Good parallel. Can't remember the last time I used a torrent program to get data.
... but if some data should get censored everywhere from "cloud peer" systems, it would spread through torrents like wildfire. That is, base blockchain transfers will always be an option, no matter what. Not sure if I understood that correctly but if I did, I could view torrents being replaced by cloud services as a regression from a decentralised system back towards a more centralised one. Cloud services are provided by a small number of large companies. Anyway I still find torrents useful. But anyway, thanks for a civilised response. I prefer reasoned debate than being told to fuck off. |
|
|
|
Segwit. Bech32. MAST. Signature aggregation. Key aggregation. Batch validation. Covenants. CT & bullet proofs. Dandelion. Neutrino. Tx compression. Set reconciliation for tx relay. Block template delta compression. NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED. UTXO commitments. TXO commitments. TXO bitfields. Rolling UTXO set hashes. Client-side validation. Peer encryption & auth. Fraud proofs. Scriptless atomic swaps. Zerolink/tumblebit. [Cut:] layer 2, HF rsrch, bip 8. (@rusty_twit)
and a paaartridge in a pear tree
<huge image deleted>
That's exactly what I'm talking about, that just made my brain hurt, without telling me how to use it. A few observations about the graphic. The picture of the network is highly distorted, showing only 3 end users! when really theres hundred of thousands or millions potentially. HIghly connected hubs will be numbered in the hundreds (I feel I'm being generous with that number). That is a highly centralised network, nothing like the depiction. I doubt many people use a hot wallet for everyday spending. The use case in which people have a spending wallet is already defunct. Who spends bitcoin when the fees are more than the cost of the purchase, you don't spend it. The promise of low fees on LN was also made onchain in the early days. When I first used bitcoin most people didnt even put a fee. I suspect fees will not be low on LN, only lower than onchain fees. When the internet appeared I was sure it would fail because I could not imaging a scenario where companies would pay to run expensive undersea cables that keep up with the demand (and all the other infrastructure) - and let me use it for 'free'. Somehow it works. This time I'm am keeping an open mind. There is enough money on the table so I'm sure something workable will emerge. When bitcoin first appeared I imagined a world of peer to peer payments with no central institutions. LN is most definately not that. The graphic tries to show how funding a channel is like funding a 'hot wallet'. A more accurate description is that funding a channel is like depositing money with a bank. I always said LN will be supported by big money. No doubt there will be an epic pump, because 'scalability is solved'. I don't like it but I can profit from it. The original dream of bitcoin doesn't exist though. |
|
|
|
Segwit. Bech32. MAST. Signature aggregation. Key aggregation. Batch validation. Covenants. CT & bullet proofs. Dandelion. Neutrino. Tx compression. Set reconciliation for tx relay. Block template delta compression. NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED. UTXO commitments. TXO commitments. TXO bitfields. Rolling UTXO set hashes. Client-side validation. Peer encryption & auth. Fraud proofs. Scriptless atomic swaps. Zerolink/tumblebit. [Cut:] layer 2, HF rsrch, bip 8. (@rusty_twit) and a paaartridge in a pear tree  That's exactly what I'm talking about, that just made my brain hurt, without telling me how to use it. A few observations about the graphic. The picture of the network is highly distorted, showing only 3 end users! when really theres hundred of thousands or millions potentially. HIghly connected hubs will be numbered in the hundreds (I feel I'm being generous with that number). That is a highly centralised network, nothing like the depiction. I doubt many people use a hot wallet for everyday spending. The use case in which people have a spending wallet is already defunct. Who spends bitcoin when the fees are more than the cost of the purchase, you don't spend it. The promise of low fees on LN was also made onchain in the early days. When I first used bitcoin most people didnt even put a fee. I suspect fees will not be low on LN, only lower than onchain fees. |
|
|
|
I have a good feeling about 2018   Onward and forward !! Yes  |
|
|
|
FU Icey. All of those things you quoted were from long ago before Dash had the governance it has now. |
|
|
|
Sign of bitcoin's drain? End of bitcoin domination era? Just because there are some other coins that are pumped? What if bitcoin will start moving in a quick way again, so it will make you say that bitcoin's era is starting again and altcoins will be dead. I don't know why people are bandwagon like this, if you are a supporter of bitcoin then just support and if not then go with your alt.
I can not understand why in recent years a lot of information is spreading in a negative way, in relation to Bitcoin. I think that the future of bitcoin future is not so vague and not as bad as others try to imagine. These are other users. To date, we see an excitement around the prices for Bitcoin and how popular is the coin among the society, so even from this it can be assumed that Bitcoin will still be at the top of the leadership among the crypto currency. It's a good point, needs to be remembered, although 'dominance' has fallen, the only thing the interested potential investor sees is that it made gains of 1000% which dwarves anything they've experienced. |
|
|
|
Sign of bitcoin's drain? End of bitcoin domination era? Just because there are some other coins that are pumped? What if bitcoin will start moving in a quick way again, so it will make you say that bitcoin's era is starting again and altcoins will be dead. I don't know why people are bandwagon like this, if you are a supporter of bitcoin then just support and if not then go with your alt.
Yes it goes in circles, and gets predictable after a while. Bitcoin has not gone and if/when LN is active it will have epic pump. I always said big money will support Lightning Networks. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin was unquestionably dominant until the point when its capacity began to struggle to handle the volume of transactions a couple of years ago. As that debate dragged on and on without resolution so the dominance has continued to fall and fall. It appears just now as if bitcion is failing as an electronic cash payments system, which is what it was supposed to be.
Eth nearly took the crown until some countries began to clamp down on its only main use case (ICOs) and it encountered scaling issues of its own. So that was the end for the challenge of Eth, for now at least.
Segwit so far achieved jackshit. Adding lightning network ie a banking layer is supposed to be the fix. And perhaps is a good fix. Most people who stayed with bitcoin are happy with it. But I don't like it, bitcoin was supposed to empower you to 'be' your own bank not require you to open a channel to a 'bank' to reduce fees and wait times.
And I hate ripple which is centralised shit, and loved by bankers also.
However the massive rush of new investors flooding into the cryto scene (in majority case you might say unsophisticated investors), they don't care at all about such idealisms of escaping the banking system, and will happily embrace Lightning Networks and / or centralised Ripple shit. Hence we see what we have now tokens like Ripple and the Lightning Network receiving massive investment.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
