Yes bitcoins are non reversible and we can set the fees as per the urgency of confirmation needed and hence they can be use widely just sometimes confirmations are slow moreover we still are not accepted at big sites.
With that system bitcoin has, it does not fit to what government like in our online transaction, they want to control things to ensure that we are doing it in compliance with the law. Bitcoin is only the future money of crypto currencies enthusiast but in general, it is not effective to implement it for the benefit of all. Legal tender is what people need as our trust in our government is still bigger compared to our trust with bitcoin network. The Government won't be too unhappy with Bitcoin, because it leaves a trail. It might not be controllable, but in case of any wrongdoing, the blockchain is a permanent, immutable record. |
|
|
|
New Image Hosting Service Pays Thousands of Uploaders in BitcoinImage hosting is one of the latest applications that bitcoin has improved upon, thanks to one-month-old Supload. The service shares advertiser revenues with its users in bitcoin. Bitcoin.com reached out to Mike Reilly, Supload co-founder and website programmer. He recently announced that his site paid out “nearly 2 BTC worldwide to our users, including many first time Bitcoin users.” https://news.bitcoin.com/new-image-hosting-service-pays-thousands-of-uploaders-in-bitcoin/ 2BTC is a pretty small amount, for a website to pay out. Some of the signature campaigns here have a higher budget. That said, if this can get new users to Bitcoin, nothing like it. |
|
|
|
Hi everyone, I've been a reader of that wonderfull forum for a while and I'm jumping in for the first time  I've searched that topic deeply for days and days, found some interesting things about that (even here) but no clear answer so I'm starting a new thread to get as detailed informations as possible (many thanks in advance ). I actually have two questions: - Q1: Banks are usually not huge fans of crypto related businesses but I suppose that the big startups around (Kraken, Bitfinex, Polo, etc.) all have bank accounts but my question is: which banks are 'Bitcoin friendly' (or at least Bitcoin tolerant) to start a business with? To specify my question, if I'd like to create a Bitcoin based startup, where should I look at (I'm in Europe)?
- Q2: Is there such a thing as a 'Bitcoin based' bank? To put it differently, is it possible to get rid of banks totally? The idea would be to have a blockchain based system capable of dealing with SEPA (direct bank debit) or things like that, just like Paypal but based on cryptos?
Many thanks in advance for any enlighted answer you may provide  A lot of people in the Bitcoin space are looking for banks which are Bitcoin friendly. A dated list and discussion on the same can be found here. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=264679.0 |
|
|
|
Even though , iPayYou doesn't look as good as other services such as Bitpay for example , they managed to make Starbucks accepting bitcoin in their official application and that's definitly an achievement for a new service like them. In order to use this feature , you first have a wallet in iPayYou otherwise It's not going to work. The next year already sound very promising and I can't wait to see more . It shouldn't be making news until Starbucks decides to accept bitcoins directly. Companies accepting bitcoins (quickly converted to fiat actually) through intermediaries are a dime a dozen. |
|
|
|
|
The pound has taken quite a beating after Brexit. So BTC reaching an ATH against the pound is not a surprise.
The real excitement will come when we reach an ATH in dollar terms.
|
|
|
|
It is very normal for bitcoins to be burned or lost in circulation. Even fiat currency like local coins that are always gone in circulation due to many reasons like melting it and used in jewelry by Chinese smugglers. This event are of no threat to the current users of bitcoin, it may possibly signal an intense increase in the value. Whatever the case the market will just adopt to the situation, but in the future if bitcoin reaches 100 million dollars each then bitcoin being burned is a very big problem that needs a solution.
I think they are not actually burned or gone .. they are just lose because of wrong sending bitcoin and forgot their own wallet password.. this is i think the problem that is why those bitcoin are gone that honestly in bitcoin i think we can not say that those are burned coin.. i think it is just a lost coins.. It is not about forgetting your wallet password. If you remember your password again, the coins become usable again. Burn addresses are valid addresses like 1CounterpartyXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXUWLpVr, to which nobody has the private key. |
|
|
|
It just makes sense for companies involved in Bitcoin to do so, doesn't seem to be that strange to me.
A lot of companies give their employees bonuses in one way or another, it isn't always cash.
The Company is not involved in Bitcoin. The OP's friend works in the finance field. The OP thought he would surprise his friend with his knowledge about Bitcoin. It is the equivalent of a bonus, but I do think it is a nice thoughtful gesture by his friend's employer. |
|
|
|
|
This will not happen in developing countries, where data charges are a bomb.
Even if hardware development makes it possible to run BTC full nodes on mobile phones, we will have to overcome greedy telecom companies who charge whatever they can for mobile internet.
|
|
|
|
|
Greenspan says we could see further jumps of $300 in either direction.
An ATH of $1200+ seems very much possible in the near term. I don't see Bitcoin dropping to $600 that easily.
|
|
|
|
For now purchase bitcoin bit risky in fear is no significant price decline after the turn of the year, except for business or trade is by using bitcoin maybe we should buy ,, but not to invest at this time
The trick is always in steadily buying, when you have cash to spare. There is always a risk in buying bitcoins, but if you average out your purchase price, the risk is reduced. |
|
|
|
Reason of the spike of 2013 is generally attributed to China, as BTCC was leading the CNY price, which was followed by Mt. Gox in USD equivalent.
In 2016, because of demonetization, bitcoin was trading over 900 USD equivalent in India far before the USD exchanges reached 900 USD.
Hence, do u think, it can be concluded that India led the rally of 2016, like China led the rally of 2013?
India is too small to influence global markets. All we have to do is look at the volume in Indian exchanges and compare it to the global markets. It is insignificant when compared to China. http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/zebpay-looks-to-make-hay-while-bitcoin-shines_8086841.html
The bitcoin trading platform aims to cross Rs 1,000-crore trade-volume mark in FY17. "We plan to add an extra zero to the trade volumes every year," Goenka said. He admitted the target is an ambitious one, but his optimism stems from the huge opportunity bitcoins offer. "Bitcoins are still taking baby steps in India," he said. "Currently China does a trade volume of Rs 15,000-20,000 crore in a single day
|
|
|
|
I do own 1 BTC. I am surprised that 25+% of the respondents don't have 1 BTC. They should get one before the blast off happens in 2017.  |
|
|
|
The notion of million-dollar Bitcoin may seem damnably unrealistic, but consider that the cryptocurrency that was trading for pennies in 2009 has now soared to almost $1000 USD. From a dollar to a thousand dollars is a 1000% rise. From a thousand dollars (its current price) to 1 million dollars is also a 1000% rise. Bitcoin has a proven track record of this magnitude of appreciation.
From a dollar to a thousand dollars is not a 1000% rise, it is a 1000x rise (more like a 100,000% rise) The problem with that analogy is that you are ignoring the base effect. In percentage terms, it is very easy to increase by a large percentage when the initial value is small. There will be hundreds of alt coins which would have increased by the same percentage. But as the market capitalization grows, repeating the increase becomes very difficult. |
|
|
|
a lot of investments are going into cryptocurrency industry, and many states are interested in the issue of its own digital currency, which inevitably increases the popularity and demand of Bitcoin.
States issuing their own digital currency shouldn't increase the popularity and demand of Bitcoin. If anything, it might make more people aware of Bitcoin. States, however, would look to stifle the growth of Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
It is looking better than gold as it stands for now. But we won't know for sure until it reaches more per ounce that gold costs now would we?  Wait until it reaches $1200 again then we can talk about if it really is better than gold because when it reaches the $1400 then it very much well be at that point in time. I see no reason why we should be focusing on the relation between price of bitcoin and 1 ounce of gold. In many countries, gold is measured in different units and the price/ounce doesn't really make sense. What really matters is the "trust" that people have in the asset. It will be difficult for Bitcoin to attain the same kind of trust, as gold has been around for thousands of years. |
|
|
|
if this kind of ransomware fluorish over the china, would bitcoin banned in China or how could Chinese government do to prevent those kind of ransomewares? that is a question.
btw qihu 360 softwares' award were disqualified because of possible cheats on performance on preventing viruses.
maybe it is because China has the first largest population in the world that it also has the most victims to this particular ransomware. but I doubt that the government is going to do anything about bitcoin just because a computer malware is using it to take ransom from pool people who was the victim of this malware, that wouldn't make any sense. there have been some improvements on breaking the encryption from some of the variations of this malware though. but it has not yet been completely neutralized. It is also a cultural issue. In third world countries, people have no qualms about using pirated software if it means saving a few dollars. When lots of people download and install software from unsafe sources on the net, it becomes easy for malware to spread. |
|
|
|
in my country, i can send 0,03 euros (0,04 mBTC) with 0,06 euros (0,12 mBTC in normal priority and 0,05 mBTC with LOW priority) of fees (with my phone = android bitcoin wallet schildbach).
so, yes, you can always emit small transactions (and pay somes article in website for example).
If you are paying more in transaction fees than the amount you are sending across, it really doesn't make sense. People typically look at transaction fees as the percentage of the amount sent across. Transaction fees of more than 100% would break the back of most business models. |
|
|
|
|
Electricity theft will happen in all electricity-intensive industries if implementation of laws is lax. I am sure the theft of electricity will be high in industries like aluminium smelting as well. You can't have a high proportion of thieves concentrated only among bitcoin miners.
However, with people getting arrested for electricity theft, it is but obvious that miners will think twice before pilfering power.
|
|
|
|
China has been doing phenomenal with each and every strategic point.
Yeah, stealing electricity and pumping many tons of carbon exhaust into the atmosphere is 'doing phenomenal'. The little fuckers are poisoning the planet and cheating while doing it. All for a few digital trinkets. Fuck! Who cares as long as the Chinese pump the price of BTC then all is good. Our planet is already in a point where the damage is already so huge, there is no way to save it. Their electricity is controlled by the state. A few brave people who are risking their freedom to steal from a communist government is also good to see. The price in Chinese exchanges is higher than those in international exchanges. So the only people who benefit from higher bitcoin prices in China are the people with bitcoins in China. |
|
|
|
Truly a bad decision from Circle. Even if they decide to shut down bitcoin buying/selling because of low income from bitcoin, this is still a big mistake. The price of bitcoin will inevitably rise in the future because of the number of people who will adopt this technology will increase. If they want to come back by then, they will not be seen as trustworthy and no one will give a shit about them anymore.
I call this the mistake of their life.
They will be more bothered about the number of transactions/ transfers made using Bitcoin, and the number of people using it. The price of Bitcoin has a very small role to play in determining the profits of companies like Circle. It might very well turn out to be the mistake of their life and ranting about it in public (like their CEO) has done would look foolish when things improve. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
