What is your theory? There is reasoning for either side.  Will it really matter who the president is? Bitcoin is supposed to be outside the mainstream and it is subsidized by the current fed regulations in the United States. Think about if Paypal was allowed by the government to be open to the darknet drug market. Bitcoin will lose its market niche. I know a lot of you want mainstream adoption but I like the underground to become mainstream because of Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
The Bitcoin blockchain has been the biggest one in size, compared to other blockchains, thus making sync time take quite some time. Nevertheless, as storage capacity increases each time, we've now seen new standards for mobile devices like a 200GB microSD card. Now, storage like 200GB is far than enough to store Bitcoin blockchain data. So my question is, will there exist a possibility of running a full node from within your mobile device sometime in the future? It would be ideal to achieve this, since mobile devices are much more accessible than PCs. Looking forward for your opinion about this.  My initial thought would be no. But I am not closing my mind to the idea. 20 - 30 years ago we would not have thought that computers in our pockets were possible, now it is a part of regular life. Maybe in the future a Bitcoin node would run in a smart phone like it was nothing. Although there is the bandwidth issue to consider. |
|
|
|
|
I would like to see what gmaxwell and the other Core developers' response to this is. Calling Segwit a "bait and switch" seems a little unfair. Everyone is free to check and look at the code to see for themselves. I am not a coder so it would be nice for someone who is neutral to comment on Roger Ver's bait and switch statement.
|
|
|
|
If you are into trading which platform or exchange you use and why you use that particular one.I want to start trading and wants to know where should I begin from?
It really depends on what you plan to trade. If you want to trade BTC/USD go to BTCE or Bitstamp, for BTC/EUR use Kraken. If you plan to trade altcoins go to Poloniex, they are the most popular exchange right now for altcoins. I would also advice to stay away from Bitfinex. They are having problems right now. |
|
|
|
Of course this was exaggerated "news"!
To me it looks like some people aren't ready accumulating cheap coins and therefore spread again some FUD and nonsense.
I mean we were again on the way up, some negative news from china popped up and we crashed.
Nothing will happen!! There will be no ban in China!
How can they really even "ban" Bitcoin? By design it is censorship resistant. They could ban the exchanges but the people will find other ways to convert their fiat to Bitcoin. Bitsquare.io is right there waiting, the darknet markets will not go away and there will be other markets that have yet to be discovered right now. They could threaten to "ban" it but they could not do anything except stop the conversion to fiat. That is good because maybe we need to start realizing that there is no need to convert to fiat. |
|
|
|
Rule number one. Hodl
Generally that is sound advice. Any dips in price should be viewed as an opportunity to buy more. I know this sounds funny when you give this same advice for altcoins. With Bitcoin it is not. There is already a market where value transfer is needed and there are more markets out there that have yet to be discovered. |
|
|
|
|
To the OP. That is a stretch sir. You have to remember that we already are enslaved one way or another with or without Bitcoin. Also fiat currencies are a more preferable tool for them to maintain the status quo because they control the supply and are also regulated by them.
|
|
|
|
|
Small solar powered mining farms located around the world would be an ideal scenario for Bitcoin. At least that is one problem solved to make the network last for the long term. Imagine all the energy to do Proof of Work is all coming from the sun. That would be something.
|
|
|
|
Chinese officials are considering introducing policies, including restricting domestic Bitcoin exchanges from moving the cryptocurrency to platforms outside the nation and imposing quotas on the amount of Bitcoins that can be sent abroad. This will really be interesting and I encourage the Chinese officials to go ahead and try. Oh please, yes, please impose capital controls on Bitcoin in China. I would love to see bitsquare.io finally have justification for its creation and use case as a censorship resistant, peer to peer exchange. Also a censorship resistant market place will be next once they totally ban Bitcoin as a currency. The only way for Bitcoin to go truly forward is for the authorities to try to put it down. |
|
|
|
consequences?
May we know the reason why? Is it laziness, a form of protest or something else? Maybe you are now leaning towards setting up a Bitcoin Unlimited node perhaps? It is your choice really but I am curious on what the reason is for the hesitation to upgrade. |
|
|
|
Someone out there is trying to use the ''Chinese Will Ban Bitcoin" scare tactic again. Why not ban it already and let Bitcoin move on from it. If those rumors are true, which they are not, then it could also be seen as a positive for Bitcoin for various reasons. China will slowly lose or diminish their influence over Bitcoin and will give room for other players to get in the exchange trading and mining game. Another reason is this should be seen as another test for the resilience of Bitcoin and a chance to give the finger to the man.
Shutting out more than a billion people won't be good for Bitcoin. We could plunge to scary levels, which would result in other people losing faith in Bitcoin as well. A billion people? So you think a billion Chinese people are using Bitcoin regularly in their lives now, and that shutting them out will result to dire consequences to the Bitcoin economy? I am sorry sir but most of the Chinese who are into Bitcoin are speculators. It will be surely bad if those thousands of Chinese speculators will be shut out but it will not make Bitcoin "die". Far from it sir. I'd rather agree that shutting out more than a billion of the Chinese people won't bode well for Bitcoin, even if only a small percentage of people in China are actually using Bitcoin right now. Shutting out China from Bitcoin basically means that the Chinese population won't have an opportunity of using Bitcoin in the future. And they could make all the difference. How can this be good? Did I ever say that shutting them out will be good. It will be bad but it will not be "the end of Bitcoin" bad. In a way this should be seen as a test to the resiliency and robustness of Bitcoin as a censor resistant network and let us see how its value transfer function gets affected in an unfriendly government. If BTC still goes around changing hands around the users of China then their "ban" will be laughable. Prepare and set up the Tor based Chinese exchanges people. Or find a way to get BTC/CNY trading jump started at bitsquare.io somehow. |
|
|
|
This is great but do not forget this will become a tech available to everyone which means lots of additional miners and huge increase in mining difficulty. In that case Chinese again win cause they have access to cheap hardware.
I do not care which country wins because going solar is the right direction. Imagine a Bitcoin mining farm that operates off the grid. That will be the beginning where Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in general will start to stand on its own. What is also nice about it is it will encourage Proof of Work to secure blockchains which for me is the only true way. |
|
|
|
Someone out there is trying to use the ''Chinese Will Ban Bitcoin" scare tactic again. Why not ban it already and let Bitcoin move on from it. If those rumors are true, which they are not, then it could also be seen as a positive for Bitcoin for various reasons. China will slowly lose or diminish their influence over Bitcoin and will give room for other players to get in the exchange trading and mining game. Another reason is this should be seen as another test for the resilience of Bitcoin and a chance to give the finger to the man.
Shutting out more than a billion people won't be good for Bitcoin. We could plunge to scary levels, which would result in other people losing faith in Bitcoin as well. A billion people? So you think a billion Chinese people are using Bitcoin regularly in their lives now, and that shutting them out will result to dire consequences to the Bitcoin economy? I am sorry sir but most of the Chinese who are into Bitcoin are speculators. It will be surely bad if those thousands of Chinese speculators will be shut out but it will not make Bitcoin "die". Far from it sir. |
|
|
|
however hyperledgers blockchain is using sha, but the lock is more so POA (proof of authority) where each hash is signed by a keypair.rather than POW.
so no, no random people will be mining it. but the banking cartell will be signing hashes to secure the chain. and distributing it on many systems internally as a way to offset tampering by their own employees by having it in separate locations instead of one single copy.
so yes its not going to be as strong as bitcoin. but then it will only be used on a closed system on hardware designed to only be run by those with authority.
Wouldnt it be more efficient and cheaper for those banks to use SQL or an Oracle database instead of riding the blockchain craze? Because it really feels like they are just trying to get in the trend of the times without really understanding what the whole point of Bitcoin really is, which is where they derived the blockchain from. Because for me a blockchain is the Bitcoin blockchain and if they cannot create it in the same manner then it might not even be a "blockchain" but a database with blocks that is "linked up together in a chain". banks version will not be as strong as bitcoin, but instead of a single SQL database, by having duplicate 'databases' that can corroborate each other by simple showing each other a hash value of any piece of data. they know that none of their own staff have tweaked the data without the bank authorized permission. savings can be made by sacking internal auditors and HR investigators, internal affairs officers, etc, etc. which saves them millions of dollars a year. i agree the banks wont be using all 10 of bitcoins security features but.. by having lets say 94,000 bank branches in america alone. banks distribution within its closed network can actually be more distributed just in america more so then bitcoins ~5000 nodes. so although they know its a closed network that is not going to have the POW difficulty of bitcoin, knowing each bank branch employee cannot maliciously create themselves a billions dollars to a secret account and then resign to the Bahamas. is a good thing to them. so its swings and round abouts.. less secure than bitcoin but more secure than their old SQL system. last thing to note. even bitcoin stores the data in a database. (using LevelDB) its more about how the database is secured and how it avoids corruption that mattersYes exactly. But what we all love about Bitcoin is it is designed to be trustless. We all know that all the transactions that transpired and happened in the network is nothing but the truth. In Hyperledger, do the banks need to trust each other with their data? Will it not be possible for some corrupt banks to collude together to manipulate the ledger to their advantage and interests? How will they prevent this? |
|
|
|
...
In my opinion insiders and whales would milk the market with as much fiat as they can without causing any panic. So it was probably caused by panicky traders, or even by trading bots that got their stops hit on the way down falling one by one like dominoes.
What do you guys think caused it?
We have the same theory. I also think that the sell down of Bitcoin was really accidentally caused by trading bots' stop losses being hit and activated causing another sell down and another cycle to continue like, to use your term, "falling dominoes".
Edit: Here's another point: 1) Caused by panicky traders = The trend continues. 2) Caused by whales and insiders = The end of the current trend, or possibly just the first wave.
Here is the funny thing. The people who released the rumor knew really that the trading bots stop losses will be hit and it will cause a sell down going below $700. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin Unlimited will join the altcoin cementery soon along with Bitcoin XT and Bitcoin Classic. By next year we should have segwit activated already.
In the moment of truth people know it's stupid to gamble with developers, and the Core devs are the most solid devs.
OMG what a Kool-Aid drinker. SegWit and LN is not Bitcoin. It is CoreAltCoin. ...and it is stupid. Fucking stupid. Core/Blockstream is the biggest scam in Bitcoin. They are trying to take over. That is not a problem because you can always fork it away from the core developers. I understand your argument and your concern but there is no need for name calling and condescending comments. If you do not agree with the cre developers and the direction they are taking then just campaign for the fork in a respectful manner. That is why Roger Ver is still highly respected because he has the right attitude. |
|
|
|
|
Someone out there is trying to use the ''Chinese Will Ban Bitcoin" scare tactic again. Why not ban it already and let Bitcoin move on from it. If those rumors are true, which they are not, then it could also be seen as a positive for Bitcoin for various reasons. China will slowly lose or diminish their influence over Bitcoin and will give room for other players to get in the exchange trading and mining game. Another reason is this should be seen as another test for the resilience of Bitcoin and a chance to give the finger to the man.
|
|
|
|
Who sells their coins as a reaction to baseless rumours any way, that's what I want to know.
This is my theory. The news has supposedly caused a minor sell down but due to that sell down trading bots' stop losses were hit on the way down causing the price to go down further and then causing more trading bots' stop losses getting hit and it moves the price down again causing another cycle. Look how fast it recovered after that and Bitcoin is now at or above $700 again. |
|
|
|
...
however hyperledgers blockchain is using sha, but the lock is more so POA (proof of authority) where each hash is signed by a keypair.rather than POW.
so no, no random people will be mining it. but the banking cartell will be signing hashes to secure the chain. and distributing it on many systems internally as a way to offset tampering by their own employees by having it in separate locations instead of one single copy.
so yes its not going to be as strong as bitcoin. but then it will only be used on a closed system on hardware designed to only be run by those with authority.
...
Wouldnt it be more efficient and cheaper for those banks to use SQL or an Oracle database instead of riding the blockchain craze? Because it really feels like they are just trying to get in the trend of the times without really understanding what the whole point of Bitcoin really is, which is where they derived the blockchain from. Because for me a blockchain is the Bitcoin blockchain and if they cannot create it in the same manner then it might not even be a "blockchain" but a database with blocks that is "linked up together in a chain". |
|
|
|
At present, I am doing a research on the most profitable trading method and I am wondering: Is it better to do btc/fiat trading or btc/altcoin trading?
Which method yields the highest profit?
It really depends how well you know those markets. Sometimes a person who is good at trading BTC/Fiat will lose money trading altcoins because they are simply a different market. If you want to know which is better, I would say all of them are good only if you know how and also have experience in trading them. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
