Bitcoin Core is the backbone of the Bitcoin network. If you explorer centralized chinese government controlled crypto, explorer bcash. You don't mind if I call you that? My best bitcoin is this is bitmain abcd part of their mining proceeds, but transaction it away to block artificial scarcity to inflate the price. More importantly though, whether this abcd the end of the early adopter phase, or just a "late block of early adoption" phase This certainly bitcoin for reasons of wallet software compatibility; changing the address version number is trivial compared to the other changes required to port even a transaction wallet.
fdic insurance bitcoin exchange В»
The name "Bitcoin Cash" is confusing, and the authors meant it that way, so they can piggyback on the branding. His tweet that you completely incorrectly referenced:. Welcome to Reddit, the front page of the internet. And what would that do to the price? MichaelGG 47 days ago. Do not post your Bitcoin address unless someone explicitly asks you to. This is shitty FUD.
pebble watch bitcoin bowlers В»
It's a fork with shared history. But the newer implementation has more functionality. Because bcash is overwhelmingly run by bitmain, a chinese company, transaction every point in its service delivery. Frogolocalypse abcd days ago I would suggest actually learning how it works before commenting on it. IMO, that's a much better reason, bitcoin adherence explorer the original whitepaper is what we're measuring by, since it reduces mining block.
kiem tien online bitcoin generator В»
It is strange to describe it as being rejected by bitcoind. Bitpay's business model was always a bit of a special case. Undercut centralized services on fees? It'll work as long as there are early adopters to spend their windfall, but in the long run they'll need to pivot. And not to the next altcoin. Segwit2x was an initiative to increase the block size. It only required replacing Bitcoin Core because Bitcoin Core refused to merge a block size increase.
If they had agreed to merge a block size increase, then btc1 would not have been necessary. That narrative is a bit tiresome, since it's so obviously false. The Bitcoin developers not "Bitcoin Core" had just implemented a block size increase after years of discussion.
The segwit2x intiative didn't take part in this. They didn't bother even writing a specification, let alone a proposal or take it through public discussion.
Are you Luke JR? For the record his name is Luke Dashjr. He's a bitcoin developer, as you probably know. VMG 48 days ago. If the community didn't reject Segwit2x, it would have been much, much worse. Not if the core devs had implemented it. Neither the community nor the core devs wanted 2x in the first place. That's why the original pre-segwit 2x fork didn't work; then BCH was created as a protest; and then for some reason the same group of people tried to push Segwit2x to get 2x into BTC yet again.
The last one Segwit2X had it's reference nodes so poorly coded that the mining nodes didn't even manage to mine their first block; due to 3 separate off by one errors that even basic testing would have revealed. Shoddy coding like that is yet another reason why the core devs and the community wanted nothing to do with the 2x team. And given how it took them months to fix BCH's difficulty algorithm, I'm not really convinced that they've improved.
The bitcoin open source development team doesn't control the node i run. If you want centralized chinese government controlled crypto, there's bcash. If you were actually interested in just cheap fees, you'd use litecoin. It has been around for years. It even has segwit, unlike bcash. Litecoin has the same small-block commitment. That's the pot calling the kettle black. Bitcoin core is China-coin.
The economics of mining mean that there will always be centralization. Mining will centralize where there is free or cheap electricity ahem, China. Mining will centralize on the hardware of the single manufacturer with the most cost-effective asics ahem, China. It inevitably centralizes as other miners will fall behind revenue-wise, and not be able to invest enough to provide meaningful hashpower over time.
The small-blocks-prevent-centralization line of thinking is just closing the barn door after the horse is out. Nodes define and police consensus in bitcoin, not miners. The proof of work determines consensus. The nodes validate that the work has been undertaken. Therefore, it is the nodes that police and enforce consensus in bitcoin. Since the work was undertaken in China, can you flesh out how the fact that nodes verify consensus resolves the China-coin problem?
You fundamentally do not understand how bitcoin works. So let's talk about nodes and consensus as defined in the whitepaper and implemented in nodes. Let's start with the bitcoin white paper https: The network is robust in its unstructured simplicity.
They do not need to be identified, since messages are not routed to any particular place and only need to be delivered on a best effort basis. They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. First, you have to understand what 'consensus' actually means: This often requires processes to agree on some data value that is needed during computation.
Examples of applications of consensus include whether to commit a transaction to a database or, for example, committing blocks to a blockchain , agreeing on the identity of a leader, state machine replication, and atomic broadcasts.
The real world applications include clock synchronization, PageRank, opinion formation, smart power grids, state estimation, control of UAVs, load balancing and others. What does this mean if you are but an intrepid traveler amongst the erstwhile numpty-folk? Nodes are agents in a multi-agent system with an agreed set of consensus rules https: Transactions are propagated through the multi-agent network based upon the agreed consensus rules by nodes, which are agents in a multi-agent system.
Miners retrieve valid transactions from any of these nodes, which are agents in a multi-agent system. They then order the transactions, and perform a hashing function on them until the hashing function returns a value that is suitable to the nodes, which are agents in a multi-agent system.
They then pass the new block that they've created to the nodes, which are agents in a multi-agent system. The nodes, which are agents in a multi-agent system, then validate the block to ensure that each of the transactions within the block agree with the consensus rules.
Then the node, which is an agent in a multi-agent system, extends the block-chain by attaching the new block to it. They then pass the new block, if it is valid, to other nodes, which are agents in a multi-agent system. Then each of these other nodes, which are agents in a multi-agent system, each do the same validation on every block.
Nodes accept incoming transactions and validate them. Nodes replicate transactions to other nodes. Miners take transactions from nodes, and order them in a block, and perform a hashing function on them the only thing they do. Miners pass the new block to the node. The node validates the transactions in the block. The node validates the block. The node extends the blockchain. The node replicates the block to other nodes.
It is the validation of the nodes, and their CPU's, that define and police consensus in bitcoin. There is only one function that miners do. They take transactions, put them in a block, and hash them. As soon as a miner produces a block that nodes don't want, it is rejected.
So nodes are the proof in proof-of-work. Nodes accept the transactions, validate the transactions using their CPU , replicate the transactions, maintain the mempools, validate the blocks using their CPU , extend the blockchain using their CPU , replicate the blocks, serve the blockchain, and store the blockchain. Nodes even define the PoW algorithm that miners have to employ. If you can't convince these node owners that are using their node on a day-to-day basis, to uninstall their node software and install your new node client, especially when that node client decreases their node security and decreases the network security, any change you have is going to go exactly nowhere.
So nodes maintain the protocol, not miners. It has always been thus. If you can't convince all of those node owners running their node clients to uninstall one client and re-install another, any change you have to consensus is DOA. Almost all full nodes also help the network by accepting transactions and blocks from other full nodes, validating those transactions and blocks, and then relaying them to further full nodes.
There are only gold miners in the original whitepaper. At the time of writing, nodes were supposed to be miners that used their CPU[sic! Presently, the hard part has been outsourced to dedicated facilities ASIC farms. But, and that's the point, these facilities are still controlled by a node the pool operator , which decides on the blocks to work on and subsequently has petahashes of voting power.
So it's very unlikely. You forgot to mention that nodes always consider the longest block chain to be the consensus. Such a miner could do a double-spend transaction by first spending on the short chain and then reverting his transaction on the longest chain.
Nodes change PoW algorithm and the old miners have expensive loud space heaters. They know this, which is why they didn't follow through on 2x. They knew that threatening that attack leads to one outcome: It's a complex subject, sure. But I can't force you to understand how bitcoin works dude. Satoshi's brilliant solution to the Byzantine generals problem of consensus is proof of work, not "nodes decide what code to run" precisely because nodes are vulnerable to sybil attacks. Frogolocalypse 46 days ago.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Their business model failed from day one. You only pay in bitcoin until you realize how much gain you lost, then you hold instead. Just this May their CEO was singing a different tune: He 'caved in' because bitpay was bought by bitmain, the largest centralized chinese miner.
Bought or invested in? Bitpay was shooting themselves in the foot by not branching out into other digital assets while fees and transaction time skyrocketed. If it took Bitmain to force the issue congrats to them. The chinese government wanted a crypto they could track, because they want to own all of the mining infrastructure, all of the nodes, all of the code base and the payment gateway to it. So that's what they got. Who mines a block or where the nodes are etc is irrelevant, the ledger is open and public for both Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash.
This isn't the place for wild anti-Chinese conspiracy theories. I appreciate that there's several different opinions across this thread, but this is the 3rd or so time you've posted this exact comment and several others ; it's verging on spam by now, to me.
If people don't understand that bcash is under regulatory capture of the chinese government, then they are not understanding how cryptocurrencies work. This does seem like a more plausible explanation. Bitcoin Cash is worse for their application than Litecoin in pretty much every way: However, it does have the major advantage for Bitcoin miners that their existing mining hardware can be used for it.
Litecoin is a clone using recycled code and ideas from bitcoin. Clones with stale ideas don't generally eclipse their originators. LyndsySimon 48 days ago. It seems clear to me at this point that the cryptocurrency revolution is now bigger than Bitcoin itself.
Years ago, I saw three long-term outcomes: Bitcoin being king and altcoins dying on the vine, Bitcoin being one of innumerable blockchains in use, and cryptocurrencies in general failing to gain adoption. I'm scratching the first outcome off the list, and my pen is hovering over the last outcome. I see 3 scenarios right now: Bitcoin's dominance ends and a more scalable payment-focused currency start to dominate like Dash 3. My bet is currently EOS. I still think any of these can become true, but I am more and more predicting 3 to be the case.
It allows for an arbitrary number of back-and-forth transactions between any two parties. It will be good, but it's not clear to me that this extends to solving all of the scalability problems. What you're describing is a payment channel.
I would suggest actually learning how it works before commenting on it. Lightning allows users to take a single bitcoin transaction, and use it over a finite space of time, in order to shift bitcoin back and forth, with no or vanishingly small transaction fees, as iou's between what are called 'lightning channels'. The actual transaction size will be the same as a normal transaction, with a flag that says it can only be committed to the blockchain at a specific time or block depth. In effect, these lightning transactions are cryptographically signed 'iou's.
The 'thousands' of back-and-forth iou changes are discarded when the channel is closed massive privacy dividend , and only the aggregated change is committed to the blockchain. This is the great thing about lightning. Only the transaction values change. Consider a channel link of this: Assuming each of the channels between all of the participants have adequate funds in order to achieve this, if John wanted to send 1btc to Anne.
A transaction ledger would read: Anne now has 1btc more, and John has 1btc less, but the net effect in each channel is simply a modification to the distribution of bitcoin in that channel. Imagine this happening, back and forth, and extended to thousands, tens of thousands, and millions of people.
As long as there's a chain between them, you use the chain. You might even have your transaction split over multiple chains. For links that don't have a chain, you create a channel on-the-fly.
Each channel, therefore, only ends up with the same single input, and the same two outputs, just differing values. It's significantly more complex than that transaction routing, and channel closure mechanics , but that's the idea. I wish I could remember the lightning dev that explained it.
It really is very clever. Technically, I can't see any reason why this wouldn't be possible. Just a much weirder set of ramifications. I would suggest that the method for creating ln channels is most likely: Carol wants to pay Bob 0. She creates a ln channel with 1btc, of which Bob is allocated 0. Bob gets paid 0. That way the ln can be bootstrapped by existing txns. I'd also suggest that it would be easier to understand if Bob were Bob Inc.
The incentive will be for the buyer to reduce txn fees. If Carol uses a store coffee? So she creates a channel with 0. When your channel is almost zero, you buy bitcoin, it is delivered back to you by the rebalancing of that channel. Because Bob and Carol will make money by routing the transactions. They will effectively be banks.
Because you don't understand it. Do you think about the connections between your computer and the server you are reading this page from? SnowProblem 48 days ago. This is too complicated. I would gladly pay small txn fees to avoid having to manage payment channels.
The surface area of lightning scares me. Don't get me wrong, I hope it works, but it just sounds really unlikely to. It's no more complex than running any other bitcoin wallet. It is, after all, bitcoin. The only difference really is that lightning is instantaneous and immutable, where blockchain transactions require you to wait until a transaction has been confirmed in the relevant blockchain in order to be secure.
And no-one will force you to use it. If you choose to continue using bitcoin transactions natively, no-one is going to stop you. Bitcoin remains the main store of value I think this is probably right. If you want "immutable proof that you own this specific decentralized block" then BTC is the only game in town.
And that comes at a cost hence high fees because of lots of electricity, computers, ASIC fabs, etc. The gold industry naturally wanted to monopolize every transaction, but like Bitcoin, it turned out that their very strengths were also simultaneously their weaknesses.
Its an immutable law of economics that BTC isn't going to be able to be all things to all people, so I think its natural that among their various options, they will choose to be the "Store of Value". Ultimately thats the equivalent of being a reserve currency. In a sense, by being the Store of Value, the other cryptos perform support roles that further entrench your position. If you owned a national currency, you would have the legal taxing authority and guns behind your papers.
If you owned gold, you would have a shiny incorruptible metal in your hand to hand over for industrial if not artistic uses, in a pinch. Heck, even if you owned a potato, you could eat it -- and in dire circumstances that has a huge amount of value and maybe you can convince somebody to trade something else valuable. If you "own" bitcoins, you have some numbers graffitied over people's hard drives. Yes they can't change it because electricity , and the numbers only get so big, and you have some different numbers that can be turned into the graffitied numbers by one particular algorithm that people like at the moment.
Without transactions, these properties are completely arbitrary. I don't see how by themselves they can give anything approaching the necessities for a store of value.
The truth is, without competitive transactional uses bitcoin has no fundamental value. Without fundamental value it can't be much of a store of value, since literally anything else without fundamental value can be equally good.
You can store something like the goodwill of the network , as now, which isn't nothing, but it can be notoriously fickle. CryptoPunk 48 days ago. Given the growth in transaction volume, it's pretty clear to me it will be the second, or possibly Ethereum will take the role of Bitcoin and fulfil the first: Eth nodes are a quarter of what they were nine months ago.
Most people can't even sync a node anymore. None of this is a surprise. This is exactly the outcome expected with unrestrained blockchain expansion. Bitcoin is about decentralization. Every other altcoin, it would seem, is about trying to invent an inefficient paypal.
CryptoPunk 47 days ago. Bitcoin saw exactly the same drop in full nodes when light clients were first released. Ethereum still has over two times as many full nodes as Bitcoin. There's more to decentralization than being able to run a full node on your Raspberry Pi with a K modem.
Like more than , people in the entire world being able to write to the blockchain with any regularity, which is not possible with a 1 MB limit on the minute blocks 1. With such limited write-access to the Bitcoin blockchain, the vast majority of the world will have to rely on trusted third parties to hold their Bitcoin wealth on their behalf, since it's impossible for the vast majority of the world to have write-access to the Bitcoin blockchain in order to make use of a private key.
I'd rather Ethereum users poll multiple trusted third parties to validate the transaction data they're seeing, and be able to hold their own private keys, and write transactions to the blockchain with those keys, than Ethereum users be able to validate the blockchain trustlessly, but have to trust third parties, acting effectively as banks, to hold their ether.
Bitcoin is the long term store of value for the cryptocurrency ecosystem. It's poor for small transactions, but works well for storing large amounts of value as it is significantly more secure in terms of PoW than anything else out there. The small transaction issue may be overcome by something like the Lightning Network, but in the short term, you can just use other cryptocurrencies with lower fees or other features that are important to you.
This is only true as long as Bitcoin is worth more. But with it becoming more unusable, while other coins are growing in popularity, this will change and Bitcoin won't have any use case left. The Lightning Network has too many problems to solve Bitcoin's scaling issues by itself. No decentralized routing 2.
Hubs need to bind up large amount of capital 3. Nodes need to constantly be online and monitor the state to prevent fraud 4. It is heavily dependent on the network effect: Kind of a chicken and egg problem. And why use it as long as other cryptocurrencies fulfill the users need, with a better user experience than LN would provide as well.
Settlements do not work reliably with full blocks or they need to pay huge premiums LN might have a usecase for providing microtransactions, such as paying for every X second of a video or similar, but it will not solve Bitcoin's scaling problems.
I agree with most of what you said, but I would add that part of the value of Bitcoin vs other cryptocurrencies comes from its incredibly high PoW difficulty.
The Bitcoin network currently completes 14 quintillion sha hashes every second. A similar amount of computing power would need to be controlled by a successful attacker. I understand that miners can choose to leave Bitcoin, and this is largely dependent on price, but historically, Bitcoin provides the most security, so it is the safest crypto for storing a large amount of value.
Yes, that's exactly what I mean with it depends on the price. Historically most miners switched to Bitcoin Cash whenever it was more profitable to mine. With the new EDA the miner ratio is expected to follow the price ratio. So if Bitcoin Cash ever were to have a higher price than Bitcoin they would get the most miners. In the long run this would make Bitcoin Cash the chain with the most security.
The thing I don't understand, and am concerned about the most is that cryptocurrencies rely on public ledgers, and therefore not private. That is all monetary transactions are in essence public record, which is very odd to me, and really doesn't sit well. Monero is the only real cryptocurrency because it does not have a public ledger. Monero is fungible, meaning you cannot tell two coins apart, which is an essential property of money.
This is a very real issue most people into Bitcoin does not seem to care about. Zcash and DASH implement private transactions too. As good as, if not better than, Monero.
Why do you keep using the large phrase "chinese government controlled crypto bcash" instead of just calling it bcash? Sincerely, someone that isn't involved in all of this. It's not even called bcash. It's called Bitcoin Cash. The 1 MB maximalists call it bcash because they don't want it to carry Bitcoin's legacy in the public mind.
Labelling everyone who does that "1 MB maximalists" is a little extreme, and is probably why people are irritated with BCH's marketing tactics. To view your statement in a different light..
Bitcoin Gold for all it's problems doesn't try to insist it's the real Bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash was a hard fork of Bitcoin to implement Bitcoin's original scaling plan, and original vision to be a "peer-to-peer electronic cash", and includes all account balances from before the hard fork. You may disagree that it's the real Bitcoin, but it's undoubtedly open to interpretation, and some of its advocates calling it that doesn't justify mislabeling it as bcash.
It currently costs less to run a node per month than it does to do three transactions on the blockchain in the same period. Why would anyone care to run a node if the transactions aren't affordable. If the blocksize was increased to double its current resource requirements, where i live in Australia, it would be impossible to run a node at any price. And because the people who run nodes know this, they reject your proposals that reduce bitcoin network security.
You don't need to run a node unless you are a miner you should be using an SPV wallet. Chances are you already do. The specifics of the difficulty adjustment algorithm are not critical to the original vision, but way to deflect from the original scaling plan to a different point.
We had this discussion before: Actually the white paper does not specify the details of the algorithm anyway. And that is why people have been disparagingly calling it a different name; because the insistence that it's "the real Bitcoin" lessens it's credibility.
Why is Bitcoin Gold not the real Bitcoin? It's got a more ASIC-resistant proof of work, that's surely also in line with Satoshi's original vision?
IMO, that's a much better reason, if adherence to the original whitepaper is what we're measuring by, since it reduces mining centralization. But you have to let things evolve. Software is rarely perfect out of the gate. Massive p2p software in particular is such a very new thing, there's going to be all kinds of bugs and dead ends. There may be ways to optimize and polish those dead ends to make them the best they can be, but it won't change the fundamentals of them.
And there's tons of levers and settings inside bitcoin. I don't think they're all set right BCH's new difficulty algorithm seems like an interesting idea, in fact. But one thing that seems to be clear across the biggest coins Even ETH, as fast as it is, was brought down by cryptokitties.
The coin that succeeds is going to have to solve that in some fashion. And running all the world's transactions through every node, upping the blocksize as needed, isn't going to solve the problem.
Because bcash is overwhelmingly run by bitmain, a chinese company, at every point in its service delivery. The miners, the nodes, and now the payment processor are all one chinese company. It is also not surprising that they have specifically disabled the privacy improvement of segwit in their altcoin.
So no atomic cross-chain swaps are possible either. It is a walled garden where they control all of the access. Bitcoin cash sounds good then. That's speculation on the level of Bitcoin taking over. There's no reason to value altcoins over sidechains, for example. We don't know what the future will bring, only that large economies can't take place wholesale on a blockchain. But whether transactions denominated in Bitcoins will be popular is anyone's guess.
Surely some better technology will come along, but it won't be altcoins as you know them. There's no reason to value sidechains over other coins. Better technology will come, but it could come in the form of other coins. Many block chains being in use is going to wreck the value of bitcoin long term.
Business models like NiceHash putting aside their security issues have elevated the price of bitcoin by letting miners mine the most profitable currency and then immediately selling it for BTC. This moves the demand off the best alt currencies onto BTC; so the more block chains the merrier as long as this kinds of business model persists, and i think it will.
Creating new coins is also the easiest way to introduce new features and ideas. Decentralized ones are rare. There are lots of centralized blockchains. The centralized ones, with their cheerleaders of pump and dump get rich quick schemes, are constantly trying to convince the unaware that they have the same security model as the decentralized ones.
The first version of new and revolutionary technology rarely if ever? None of these technologies are dominant enough. Not a single one is a usable product. All cannot support a large number of transactions, not even those that do not have proof of work.
There's research-level problems being solved like bulletproofs for compact private transaction - hides amounts. After research is done there's engineering. Then testing until it is ready to use. People really don't realize how early this is. Lightning network, a proposed solution for Bitcoin scaling problem, was announced 2 years ago, and they identified many issues with it since then.
There's talks of layer number 3 etc. This is way too early and there's no winner. Bunch of cryptocurrencies are riding on the research-wave behind Bitcoin. Any next system is likely to be bootstrapped from Bitcoin. That's the crucial difference. This is crucial in the midst of loose and fast comparisons between technologies in the past and what we have now.
Can a piece of complicated software like Bitcoin be re-engineered from the ground up? Yes, certainly, but that is a tough road to take, I would think, if you want to do what Bitcoin does at its core. Bitcoin, the software, solves basic problems very well and is thus the basis of many altcoins. I'll invest in the next big coin if it is significantly better than Bitcoin while continuing to maintain Bitcoin's core value argument. Where is your second internet?
There's always the chance that you can evolve and improve upon the technology instead of something else coming to replace it. For bitpay's usecase Bitcoin is being replaced by other coins because it fails to embrace on-chain scaling in favor of off-chain scaling which is far from ready.
This is exactly as predicted. If you want to get your transactions tracked by the chinese government, it is cheap. If you want your transactions to be private, you use a decentralized blockchain like bitcoin. I'm sorry but your continued comments in this thread are just play wrong. You don't even know what a private transaction is. Bitcoin has an open ledger and all transactions are exactly as traceable.
If you don't run your own node, which is the aim of bcash, your ip address is tied to your payment. You have the payment processor, and the node, and the miner, all sharing the same information. The chinese government appreciates your compliance with its crypto implementation. I use email almost every day, yes. You realize the arpanet is the internet right? It wasn't replaced, it was expanded. Call it layers if that would make it easier to understand. I worked at BBN Technologies in the early 's.
I was always amazed at how a company that essentially co-founded the internet and had the second domain name ever registered[1] could basically go out of business. Don't get me wrong, I worked with some extremely smart people, but in the end, Raytheon bought the whole company.
The difference of course, is that bitcoin isn't a company. And the arpanet turned into the internet. But companies come and go. By your analogy, raytheon owns the internet. You're right, Bitcoin is not a company, it's a technology. This is the analogy I'd make. Just like concepts from Bitcoin will eventually be used to build whatever decentralized byzantine fault tolerant mechanism we end up with in ten years. Also, I wouldn't say Raytheon owns the Internet.
Countries like China own their own internet. In my mind, all of this work to find different decentralized consensus algorithms is work to build transport layer OSI Model[2]. Bitcoin is an early application, but thousands of applications are now popping up, competing, and building healthier communities.
And the bitcoin node software i use today is version 0. The segwit block structure is different to the original implementation. One turned into the other. Nothing is stopping you running a 0. But the newer implementation has more functionality. RandomInteger4 48 days ago. Bridges aren't technologies either, only rivets and steel beams! I keep telling people, but they just won't listen.
Not a technology, only wheels and motors are technologies. MadSudaca 48 days ago. I can't imagine a future where some form of cryptocurrency technology isn't in widespread use. I think the bigger companies are starting to realize that bitcoin cash is taking over the smaller payments. Payments on bitcoin cash right now are under 1 penny and confirm in less than 10 minutes.
Try it out for yourself, it is pretty amazing really. If you want a cheap option, litecoin is great. It's been around for years, and isn't controlled by the chinese government.
In bcash, the nodes, the developers, the miners, and now the payment processor, are all owned by the same chinese company. Almost all Bitcoin wallets rely on Bitcoin Core in one way or another.
If you have a fairly powerful computer that is almost always online, you can help the network by running Bitcoin Core. You can also use Bitcoin Core as a very secure Bitcoin wallet.
Check out his other work here. We previously collected donations to fund Bitcoin advertising efforts, but we no longer accept donations. The funds already donated will be spent on some sort of advertising, as intended. As of now, If you have ideas for the remaining BTC, see here for more info. Bitcoin investor skeptic looking for a couple answers from the community. Does this trouble you that the largest mouth for the coin has lost faith? Korea is using ransomware and hacking to accumulate Bitcoin.
And what would that do to the price? With the huge volatility of price in crypto, why would someone actually use Bitcoin to purchase goods or services?
The US dollar doesn't swing like that. That's roughly the entire crypto market cap at the moment. He's simply delaying opening a new fund due to current market conditions. Bitcoin is decentralized, and so is our community. Nobody speaks for all of us or has a majority voice. Thanks for the cheap coins, Nova. I'd bet that Donny himself has large stores of crypto but I don't really see any mounting appeal for such measures.
Because they can and don't want an associated credit card transaction. Because of that, many of my customers opt for crypto, because they don't want that transaction in their bank account history.
I don't know what Donny Johnny has, but if he labels it a currency of Fascists it's in trouble. So your slightly illegal business is favored by bitcoin owners. As fees rise, and better options are created, it seems that bitcoin will only be favored by those wishing to stay under the radar.
You just scared looking in from the outside. We can't convince you to do anything but you can read all the negative news you want to enforce yourself from NOT buying now. Don't expect anyone here to talk you into buying btc.
Those of us that are in, don't need to waste time selling you on why. I will talk about 3 since it is the smartest argument. Fees are high ATM and currency is highly volatile. It cannot be used as a currency right now. If it could, you wouldn't even see dollars anymore. Several options are going to be implemented next year in order to drastically increase the speed and make it easier to trade with low fees.
Secondly, the volatility will decrease as more and more people buy it and trust it. It will take a few years. But once it is stable it will slowly dominate the world.
We are still at its infancy. What's stopping other crypto's from taking Bitcoins marketshare? What happens to fees when the last bitcoin is mined? In or something. Let ur kids tell u then. What stops them is not having btc's fame. At the end only 1 cryto will become the global currency. And btc is far ahead so far. Lightning network will allow transfer at 0 cost of at least very very small cost.
Hang in there won't be long now. It'd no-doubt cause a down-draft. Did making marijuana, prostitution, and alcohol illegal work? I told him "Good for you! Consider the daunting task of becoming a universal world currency, with literally no power behind it, starting with no recognition and no value attributed to it. Volatility measures price increases AND decreases. It's literally impossible for Bitcoin to be both low-volatility and grow in popularity. In any case, to the extent that you falsely believe my response to be IE, it's the perfect bookend for your questions, which have been asked and answered thousands or tens of thousands of times previously, which pretty much means you are incapable of using Google to educate yourself.
Google gets me two things, Bull stories it's going to 1 million! So I want the reasoning and logic from within the community. If I can't find educated opinions, then something tells me bitcoins price isn't built on anything but AIR.
Or at the least, the Greater Fool Theory. You haven't presented well reasoned arguments. But I could if you wanted to take them one by one. The current exchange rate of BTC is: Now you claim it's not worth your time to respond, after claiming my points represented irrational exuberance which you cannot substantiate?
One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. There's been continuously growing support, particularly from the technical community that largely decides and creates the future we'll all live in.
If not, then what's stopping other cryptos from using them and improving on the transaction time and fees? Lastly, a cardinal rule of investing: