Last year, the first round of this experiment lost 50% of it's Bitcoin value. I'm not yet motivated to create Round #3  If you find the motivation for a round #3 after all, I'd be definitely interested in participating. While I don't have much faith in alts it looks like the next few months could be fun and having skin in the game would make things more interesting still. |
|
|
|
So far I love being wrong and I hope it stays that way. At this point I'm keeping my fingers crossed for Ipwich, even though I don't expect it to happen.
One question did you expect last week till now?? Its BTC, expect the unexpected always  Not at all. I expected a strong upward market movement after breaking USD 6000,- but not at this scale and not within this timeframe. More importantly for the price-prediction-game, while I expected a run at USD 6000,- before the end of Q2, I expected it to fail and cause a slump until at least the end of Q3. To be honest my entry was more bearish than I actually felt at the time, however I tried to manage expectations. I still try to stay pessimistic but that's getting harder by the day  On a side note I'm also a bit surprised by Bitcoin's market dominance. I expected alts to catch up sooner, rather than later. Then again we're still early in the game and have been moving much faster than expected. |
|
|
|
[...]
Otherwise you can contact certain companies that offer help, but those aren't the ones that "own" BTC so to speak. Be wary of giving sensitive info out though, especially if it's a relatively unknown company.
Note that those companies are only responsible for the respective services they offer. So for example if you deposited money at Coinbase and it doesn't show up in your account, contact Coinbase support. If you have problem with a specific wallet, either browse the wallet's FAQ / documentation or look here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=37.0If you're having general questions regarding Bitcoin or require technical support just post your questions here on this "Technical Support" board (or better yet: use the search function, either on Bitcointalk directly or by quering google like this: "problem i want to solve site:bitcointalk.org") And to reiterate what the others posted above: Bitcoin has no owner, company or franchise so anyone pretending to be a Bitcoin support line ist most likely trying to scam you. |
|
|
|
|
So far I love being wrong and I hope it stays that way. At this point I'm keeping my fingers crossed for Ipwich, even though I don't expect it to happen.
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like you guys have been having fun, what externality costs are you referring to precisely?
The cost of PoW, the security / decentralization / scalability trade-off, the construction of ASICs...?
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure if that's still the case (and the posts above make me doubt it) but it used to work a couple of years back, provided the original transaction had too low a fee.
Keep us posted, I'm actually quite curious about the results.
|
|
|
|
2.What kind of chain does the platform currency use?
I think the currency shouldnt be an ERC20 and we should "Only Bitcoin". I think Omni protocol is cool but is the transfer too expensive?
AFAIK there are currently no coloured coins via LN on mainnet. While CounterParty seems to be working on LN compatibility [1] I didn't find any signs of Omni making any moves in this regard. Also RGB might be worth keeping an eye on [2], but it also is still work in progress as far as I can tell. [1] https://counterparty.io/docs/paymentchannels-lightning-faq/[2] https://github.com/rgb-org/spec |
|
|
|
Another match was the hash of the goatse photo. (If you don't know what that is, goatse is an old school shock site that is very, very NSFW. I didn't even realise I had that photo sitting on my storage.)
...because of course it was. There should be a word for being surprised while not being surprised at all while feeling both disgusted and nostalgic at the same time. |
|
|
|
May be someone can provide us a kind of "chipmixer calculator" ?
If someone hosts it I wouldn't mind doing that however, it's probably unnecessary... [...] I started off porting your script from Python to JavaScript (read: adding brackets and semicolons), but messed up somewhere along the way so I wrote a little jsfiddle from scratch (you can use it in the bottom right corner): https://jsfiddle.net/Lk5u2d14/10/<html>
Enter Amount: <input type="text" id="input"></input>
<button id="button">
Calculate
</button>
<ul id="output">
</ul>
</html> const input = document.getElementById("input");
const button = document.getElementById("button");
const output = document.getElementById("output");
const minChip = 0.001;
const chips = [minChip];
for (let i = 0; i < 20; i += 1) {
const nextChip = chips[chips.length - 1] * 2;
chips.push(nextChip);
}
const precision = 8;
button.onclick = function() {
while (output.childNodes[0]) {
output.removeChild(output.childNodes[0])
}
let amount = Number(input.value);
while (amount >= minChip) {
let maxIndex = chips.length - 1;
while (chips[maxIndex] > amount) {
maxIndex -= 1;
}
while (amount >= chips[maxIndex]) {
amount -= chips[maxIndex];
// fix rounding errors
amount = Number.parseFloat(amount.toFixed(precision));
const node = document.createElement("li");
const text = document.createTextNode(chips[maxIndex]);
node.appendChild(text);
output.appendChild(node);
}
}
const node = document.createElement("li");
const text = document.createTextNode("donated amount: " + amount.toFixed(precision));
node.appendChild(text);
output.appendChild(node);
}(provided as-is, no guarantee for correctness) |
|
|
|
There is possible only to scenario now no deal or delays
First will cause huge protest from pro EU citzens second will cause noisy protest from Brexiters
Generally it is one big damage for GB politicians
Good thing is they will pay price in upcoming GB election.That case democracy will win
That's the thing though, IMO the UK should hold a second referendum to see if their citizens still want to leave the EU to begin with. If anything their people would now be able to make a more informed decision on the matter than a couple years back. Triggering such a huge change based on a marginal majority was questionable to begin with. However it seems like the egos of the politicians involved are more important than the will or even the benefit of their people. At least that's the only way I can explain to myself this clusterfuck of a deadlock. |
|
|
|
And what about London city financial center of the world
That's a weird way to spell Frankfurt. --- The whole Brexit debacle is a farce, but I have to admit it's been kinda fun to grab some popcorn and watch companies head for the mainland and investment funds moving from the UK to Ireland and Luxembourg. I believe that the impact of a hard Brexit on mainland Europe and the rest of the world will be rather limited since there don't seem to be any imports or exports that are unique to the UK except for mostly financial services which are geographically independent (ie. Frankfurt or Paris might work just as well as a financial hub as London). Please correct me if I'm wrong about the UK's imports and exports however, as I admittedly know very little of the UK's economy. Either way I have my doubts that a hard Brexit will happen to begin with, whatever the alternatives will be. As far as Bitcoin is concerned, I doubt that there will be much of an impact apart from a short term pump. |
|
|
|
Right so its some sort off css witchcraft skulduggery.
So im guessing then the css will force the image into position and then a.subscribebutton:visited {display = "none"} will remove it
Many Thanks both for your replies
TT
While a fun approach setting a:visited { display: none; } will likely not work on most modern browsers: For privacy reasons, browsers strictly limit which styles you can apply using this pseudo-class, and how they can be used: - Allowable CSS properties are color, background-color, border-color, border-bottom-color, border-left-color, border-right-color, border-top-color, column-rule-color, and outline-color.
- Allowable SVG attributes are fill and stroke.
- The alpha component of the allowed styles will be ignored. The alpha component of the element's non-:visited state will be used instead, except when that component is 0, in which case the style set in :visited will be ignored entirely.
- Although these styles can be change the appearance of colors to the end user, the window.getComputedStyle method will lie and always return the value of the non-:visited color.
This means you'll probably have to rely on JavaScript instead. If you want the website to remember whether a user has clicked the button you'll then additionally have to persist it locally using either cookies, Local Storage or IndexedDB with Local Storage probably being the recommendable approach for this use case. |
|
|
|
But they don't require it to be confirmed within that timeframe... they simply require that you broadcast the transaction within 15 minutes... as long as their node sees your transaction in the mempool within the 15 minute window, it will mark it as "pending"... even if it takes another 2 hours to get 6 confirmations. It just won't confirm the payment as being completed with the vendor until your transaction gets 6 confirmations.
Correct. BitPay is actually very lenient in what it accepts as a "paid" invoice, even transactions with unconfirmed parents or very low transaction fees are fair game. You will receive a warning message and it won't show up in the merchant's account until it has at least 1 confirmation, but for you as a customer the invoice is paid at this point. I assume that eventually BitPay will cancel your invoice, however they seem to be quite patient once the transaction has entered the mempool. Note that depending on their account settings a merchant may accept an invoice as "paid" even sooner than 6 confirmations: https://blog.bitpay.com/advanced-merchant-risk-mitigation/Either way OP needs to contact either BitPay or the merchant they were trying to pay. |
|
|
|
It is fragmented, sure. But how about financial markets?
How long are still the arms of SEC and CFTC ? While the SEC's international reach is questionable to begin with, it doesn't care when no US citizens are involved. Financial regulation within the EU is vastly different from financial regulation in the US. Financial services that may be available to US citizens may be illegal to EU citizens and vice versa. Regulation in China, India, Russia and other nations of the world is different still. Financial regulations are just as fragmented as the rest of the law. Honest (mining) is always your sustainable friend
There simply is no global consensus on what is "honest" or even "legal". |
|
|
|
Announcement of a mandatory Dear Sir at the beginning of every post followed by a Kind Regards at the end.
Dear Sir, I think these phrases should be added automatically at the beginning and end of each post as they are being displayed. Kind Regards |
|
|
|
The main problem isn't the fee, it's the unconfirmed inputs (thought the 14sat/b fee will be a problem too).
Look at your link, it has the (U) icon after the input. Means that it's still unconfirmed and your transaction can't be confirmed before the parent transaction.
[...]
It is worth noting that -- at least from my experience -- given sufficient transaction fees, transactions spending unconfirmed inputs should confirm just as fine as regular transactions. At least from what I've seen miners will usually simply put both transactions into the same block without much of a noticeable delay. Your mileage may vary though. |
|
|
|
All other additional functions like smart contracts that should execute a legal contract like issuing tokens on a blockchain have to be centralized/ permissioned cause u need to be compliant with law anyway, except u want to scam others. So pls do NOT shill or create such things that are easily enable scamming, better vote for decent institutions who are compliant with law.
Which law? US federal Law? US state law? EU Law? German Law? Canadian Law? Civil law? Criminal law? Contract law? There's no global legislature and most likely there won't be within our lifetime. Most international agreements are just guidelines without repercussions. International trade, tax as well as diplomatic agreements vary vastly between the involved nations. The legal system is incredibly fragmented, always changing and full of edge cases. It's the opposite of what a static protocol can handle, and far from simple. Additionally not everything that's legal is exactly ethical and not everything that's ethical is legal -- with the question of ethics being subjective to boot. While humans are fallible there's a reason that most nations depend on a hierarchical court systems to tend to those laws. Maybe one day we'll have a benevolent AI acting as judge, jury and executioner (if one deems this a desirable scenario), until then legality is an issue that needs to be handled on a social level, not a technical level. This social level is a separate protocol level of its own, if you will. As such that's where you want to keep the responsibility for legal concerns. What your post is suggesting is a mixing of protocol layers and responsibilities. I'm fairly certain that most people with a bit of a background in computer science, telecommunications and / or software engineering will agree that that's rarely a good idea. |
|
|
|
Smart contracts can be part of op_return or deployed with the Bitcoin script - as I mentioned this must not be permissionless as ETH is - since u invite all sorts off illegal crap into Bitcoin (as ETH or other full permissionless smart contract chains already do ... expect them to be killed by Regulator et al)
There are many centralized alts that can serve as a permissioned cryptocurrency if you so wish. I'd rather not have Bitcoin regress to the control levels of PayPal and credit cards, thank you very much. How on earth could an open protocol and an open ecosystem be like Paypal or any other closed / central entitiy ?? By introducing permissioned components as suggested in your post above. Once you allow for measures against permissionlessness on the protocol level you're back at the restrictions of centralized services. While regulation on a legislative level is more or less unavoidable and to some extend desirable (eg. clear taxation laws on cryptocurrency income, clear legal frameworks to allow for legitimate exchanges to operate in), the technological foundation needs to be non-partisan and permissionless to allow for a meaningful improvement on existing systems. I might be misunderstanding what you are suggesting though. BTW the less rules the open protocol has, the more open it is and the better it is scalable ...
Simplicity does not necessarily equate openness and scalability. Also in the case of cryptocurrencies openness and scalability account for nothing if security and integrity are neglected. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
