Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 48 results by CryptoRyuzaki
There are few ways to earn bit coin without investment. They are
1. Doing an online freelancing job like website designing or logo designing and request to pay in bit coin. One such website where you get a freelancing job is
www.xbtfreelancer.com
2. Sign Up Bonus for Alt Coins, Air Drops and Bounties - Check out the Services Place in the Forum
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=52.0
3. Faucets - Most Time consuming with least reward. Not Recommended.
1. Doing an online freelancing job like website designing or logo designing and request to pay in bit coin. One such website where you get a freelancing job is
www.xbtfreelancer.com
2. Sign Up Bonus for Alt Coins, Air Drops and Bounties - Check out the Services Place in the Forum
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=52.0
3. Faucets - Most Time consuming with least reward. Not Recommended.
For twitter, you can search for accounts who follow back if you follow them. Using this, you can easily get 1000-2000 followers in a week. You can find users who followback using a search like below:
https://twitter.com/hashtag/followback?f=users&vertical=default
Good luck!
https://twitter.com/hashtag/followback?f=users&vertical=default
Good luck!
Can somebody please explain what is the merit system is Bitcointalk forum. On what basis one can get merit and what is the easiest way to get merit. Its very confusing:(
To say in simple terms, you get merit points when others find your answer/post helpful and provide you with merit points. By earning merit points, you slowly raise in forum rank. Good luck!
This is definitely a useful tool for those who dwell in the cryptocurrency stock market. Usually there will be a spike in price when a coin gets listed on an exchange and this tool would immediately signal that, providing you with an edge to decide whether to invest in that coin or not. Good work!
Re: Beware of Increasingly Sophisticated Malware Infection Attempts
Thanks for sharing the different malware attack/attempts. One needs to be extra vigilant whenever clicking on any unknown links and have the anti-virus software up to date. These two primary items will help you more than 90% of the time to avoid any infections.
The concept of decentralization and how blockchain solves the problem of duplication/copies (i.e. fixing the double spending) and making it impossible to hack is what impresses me most.
As EthanB rightly pointed out earlier, this seems to be a fake deal.
For others who are interested, OP asks you to sign up using his affiliate link to Viberate, Stake-it and Coinut. I had done this and sent him message on Feb 2nd. He has not replied to any of my messages after that (even though he had come online). Others Beware!
For others who are interested, OP asks you to sign up using his affiliate link to Viberate, Stake-it and Coinut. I had done this and sent him message on Feb 2nd. He has not replied to any of my messages after that (even though he had come online). Others Beware!
there is always an increasing adoption of bitcoin which is constantly contributing to the long term rise of bitcoin price. last year this adoption was "booming" which is why the price also "boomed".
here are major incidents that contributed to this big rise:
Thanks for your insights - I wasn't aware of the huge adoption level in Japan (like removal of taxes). This and the media coverage on bit coin prise rise would have given lot of confidence for new investors to trust and invest in bit coin, which would have let to its meteoric rise!here are major incidents that contributed to this big rise:
- mainstream adoption of bitcoin in Japan. finally Japanese decided to officially accept bitcoin as a "legal method of payment" and that was a big move helping the rise a lot. mainly because of hundreds of merchants in Japan that started accepting bitcoin. this was also led to change of views in other countries even in Russia after years of negativity against bitcoin.
- removal of taxes on bitcoin payments. again in Japan and a couple of other countries like Australia. and you can imagine how merchants that were already accepting bitcoin and the new ones felt. which helps with the adoption.
- the end of 3 year scaling debate in August. finally the scaling debate which was a very big slow down for bitcoin's growth came to an end when the big blockers forked off and bitcoin could finally come to consensus and have Seregated Witness activated which also opened up lots of future possibilities such as Lightning Network, Cross Chain Transactions (Atomic Swap), more anonymity (Confidential Transactions), ...
- price rise itself. when bitcoin performs well and it is rising and giving a lot of profit, a lot of new investors become aware of it and start investing in it in order not to "miss the boat"
- a lot of publicity in the media which is practically advertising bitcoin!
the main reason was thats the more people started using bitcoin , many transactions have been done due to which it demand increased and bitcoin got a sharp rise in its value
As per the graph in wikipedia, the number of bitcoin transactions in 2017 had a normal growth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_bitcoin#/media/File:BTC_number_of_transactions_per_month.png
Newbie here - I was recently exposed to cryptocurrency and have been studying it. Unfortunately, it was after the bit coin boom of 2017.
I knew that the bit coin had a good bull run in 2017. I just looked at the stats today and I am simply astonished
Bit Coin Price History
Dec 2013 - $600
Jan 2017 - $800
Apr 2017 - $1,200
June 2017 - $3,200
Sep 2017 - $5,000
Nov 2017 - $7,300
Dec 2017 - $13,800 (at one point it reached $17,900)
So, what were the reasons for the bit coin's gigantic bull run in 2017?
I will also track the reasons you mention and add them below.
I knew that the bit coin had a good bull run in 2017. I just looked at the stats today and I am simply astonished
Bit Coin Price History
Dec 2013 - $600
Jan 2017 - $800
Apr 2017 - $1,200
June 2017 - $3,200
Sep 2017 - $5,000
Nov 2017 - $7,300
Dec 2017 - $13,800 (at one point it reached $17,900)
So, what were the reasons for the bit coin's gigantic bull run in 2017?
I will also track the reasons you mention and add them below.
Re: Any harm in registering airdrops with email address?
It is recommended to use a different email address for registering/use for air drops. Don't use your personal email, else at one point or other you will be getting lot of spam/promotional emails.
I have couple of questions - In above post, there are two statements:
1. "your activity score only updates every two weeks"
2. "Activity is updated every hour."
Is the activity updated every hour or once every two weeks?
1. "your activity score only updates every two weeks"
2. "Activity is updated every hour."
Is the activity updated every hour or once every two weeks?
The activity will increase by 14 every two weeks. And after you make the first post in the new period, it will took up to 1 hour to see the new activity count in your profile.
The 2nd question I have is on how time is calculated.
time = number of two-week periods in which you've posted since your registration
I joined this forum roughly 10 days ago and by above formula, my time value should be 1 and Activity value should be 14. But my activity value is currently 28. Is the above formula changed since it was originally posted?
time = number of two-week periods in which you've posted since your registration
I joined this forum roughly 10 days ago and by above formula, my time value should be 1 and Activity value should be 14. But my activity value is currently 28. Is the above formula changed since it was originally posted?
It is not calculated like this. It is based on periods.
For example for you, you joined in the previous period which ended Tuesday. That's mean you have posted on 2 periods, that's why you have 14 (activity) x 2 (2 periods) =28.
Now if we took the example of someone joining after Tuesday, he needs to wait 2 weeks before his activity increases.
May I know when my activity value will reach 30 to become Jr Member?
You need to wait until Tuesday - January 30, 2018More informations about when periods start could be found here
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12saLhlUoqIdairxzuSPu6EYGrt7FN2lOstO1yDjCEbA/htmlview?pli=1
Thanks for the detailed explanation @InvoKing! Your answer clearly explains all the questions that I had.
Re: Why the fuck did Satoshi implement the 1 MB blocksize limit?
Great question !
There are three possible answers:
1) Satoshi didn't completely understand the implications of his random choice, which seemed reasonable at the time to him.
2) Satoshi knew very well what he was doing, was an evil mind, and he was lying through his teeth all the time, to trick us into his nonsense.
3) Satoshi was a true god and genius, and even though we think he might have made a mistake, he was absolutely right in everything he ever did and we are simply too dumb to see it.
There have been a lot of discussions over that issue, and people warned Satoshi that his random decision was recipe to disaster.
The truth is maybe in the 3 things at once. It is obvious that the spam limit is a joke. In fact, it makes spam worse. The excuse was that if a fool mined a single block of 10 GB full of nonsense, the blockchain would be spammed to an incredible size in no time. That was clearly wrong, because in order for that block to be incorporated into the chain, other miners would have to agree with it. There's no reason why honest miners would mine on top of a crazy block. In other words, implicitly, there would be a gross maximum size set by miners and that would grow dynamically.
By putting a hard limit on block size, you actually increase drastically the effect of spam, as we saw. Once the block is full of spam, transactions are hindered. This is an efficient DDOS of bitcoin. If the blocks are elastic, you can spam a lot, that will increase the size to some point, but transactions can go through unhampered, and you'd have to spam like crazy in order to have an efficient DDOS. Hard limits make DDOSsing of bitcoin in fact much easier.
Satoshi was clearly in favour of very large blocks if useful, and he explains that in the beginning, where he tells us that most normal users shouldn't run a full node, "left to specialists with farms of specialized hardware". That was in November 2008.
People explained him that putting a hard limit in the protocol would require a hard fork at a point, which might be problematic. He wavered that away: just changing a constant in the code.
Maybe Satoshi did put a "time bomb" in his bitcoin system because he considered it an experiment from which we have to learn, and it should self-destroy at a certain point in order for us to make a new system with better properties. Maybe Satoshi wanted to put in a trap, so that only if his heirs were smart enough to have good governance, and if they cannot even change a simple parameter, then it is better that this system dies. Maybe Satoshi wanted to develop a whole crypto market, and needed to put something nasty in bitcoin, in order to make it lose its first mover advantage and open up the market.
Maybe Satoshi was designing a reserve currency for big, dark, deep state players, and only needed Joe Sixpack to ramp it up, but needed him to be pushed out of bitcoin once the system was up and running, to leave it to the big boys. Claiming it to be a currency of the people, but at the same time, making its use too expensive for the people, and only allow the big boys on it, was maybe his hidden plan.
But I think that Satoshi simply made a mistake. He made many. Bitcoin is quite ill designed. That doesn't take away the fact that he was a bright mind. We have hindsight he didn't have. But he was wrong on this one, as he was wrong on many choices.
Okay okay, before you rush and say "To prevent spam attacks!!", please wait and read this whole thread.
^The above argument is what I hear all the time. However, there is something not quite right about that reasoning. It doesn't make sense.
Let's start with a little background info...
Satoshi implemented the 1 MB blocksize limit without telling anyone; He just did it randomly. There was no discussion beforehand and after he did it, he did not mention it anywhere. People had to look at the code/use it to see the change. The mannerism in which the 1 MB blocksize limit was added is already strange in itself and as soon as it was done, debates/arguments among the community started happening.
Satoshi never told people that the 1 MB limit was to prevent spam - its just what everyone inferred.
Okay... history lesson over.
Now here is why it doesnt make sense:
The process of a transaction getting confirmed and added to the blockchain goes like this:
1) Tx. is broadcast with a custom fee
2) Tx. is added to the mempool
3) Miner collects tx. from the mempool (usually they will pic tx. based on which has the highest fee and work their way down from there)
4) Miner adds tx. to their block
5) Miner calculates the proof of work
6) Miner publishes block to the blockchain
Okay now we have the process outlined we can analyse the miners incentives/behaviour. I'll be using game theory to explain this and here is where it gets interesting.
The miners main goal is to make profit. This is why he adds tx. to his block in the first place (it allows for more fees and thus, more profits). So we can assume that without the blocksize limit, the miners would add infinite tx. to their block right? WRONG!
Allow me to explain:
Look at step 3.. Collecting the tx. from the mempool and adding it to their block takes a set amount of time and the longer that the miner spends collecting the tx. and adding it to their block, the less time they can spend calculating the proof of work - thereby giving their competition (other miners) the edge. The miners would naturally (based on game theory) find a nash equilibrium between collecting as many tx. as possible and finding enough time to calculate the proof of work in order to give them the maximum profitability. Thus, we can assume, that without a blocksize limit (infinite), the block size would stay relatively the same.
This is why an infinite block size limit is not an issue. I honestly cannot understand why he added the 1 MB limit.
Can someone please, please explain? I have been pondering this for over a month now. Thanks.
^The above argument is what I hear all the time. However, there is something not quite right about that reasoning. It doesn't make sense.
Let's start with a little background info...
Satoshi implemented the 1 MB blocksize limit without telling anyone; He just did it randomly. There was no discussion beforehand and after he did it, he did not mention it anywhere. People had to look at the code/use it to see the change. The mannerism in which the 1 MB blocksize limit was added is already strange in itself and as soon as it was done, debates/arguments among the community started happening.
Satoshi never told people that the 1 MB limit was to prevent spam - its just what everyone inferred.
Okay... history lesson over.
Now here is why it doesnt make sense:
The process of a transaction getting confirmed and added to the blockchain goes like this:
1) Tx. is broadcast with a custom fee
2) Tx. is added to the mempool
3) Miner collects tx. from the mempool (usually they will pic tx. based on which has the highest fee and work their way down from there)
4) Miner adds tx. to their block
5) Miner calculates the proof of work
6) Miner publishes block to the blockchain
Okay now we have the process outlined we can analyse the miners incentives/behaviour. I'll be using game theory to explain this and here is where it gets interesting.
The miners main goal is to make profit. This is why he adds tx. to his block in the first place (it allows for more fees and thus, more profits). So we can assume that without the blocksize limit, the miners would add infinite tx. to their block right? WRONG!
Allow me to explain:
Look at step 3.. Collecting the tx. from the mempool and adding it to their block takes a set amount of time and the longer that the miner spends collecting the tx. and adding it to their block, the less time they can spend calculating the proof of work - thereby giving their competition (other miners) the edge. The miners would naturally (based on game theory) find a nash equilibrium between collecting as many tx. as possible and finding enough time to calculate the proof of work in order to give them the maximum profitability. Thus, we can assume, that without a blocksize limit (infinite), the block size would stay relatively the same.
This is why an infinite block size limit is not an issue. I honestly cannot understand why he added the 1 MB limit.
Can someone please, please explain? I have been pondering this for over a month now. Thanks.
There are three possible answers:
1) Satoshi didn't completely understand the implications of his random choice, which seemed reasonable at the time to him.
2) Satoshi knew very well what he was doing, was an evil mind, and he was lying through his teeth all the time, to trick us into his nonsense.
3) Satoshi was a true god and genius, and even though we think he might have made a mistake, he was absolutely right in everything he ever did and we are simply too dumb to see it.
There have been a lot of discussions over that issue, and people warned Satoshi that his random decision was recipe to disaster.
The truth is maybe in the 3 things at once. It is obvious that the spam limit is a joke. In fact, it makes spam worse. The excuse was that if a fool mined a single block of 10 GB full of nonsense, the blockchain would be spammed to an incredible size in no time. That was clearly wrong, because in order for that block to be incorporated into the chain, other miners would have to agree with it. There's no reason why honest miners would mine on top of a crazy block. In other words, implicitly, there would be a gross maximum size set by miners and that would grow dynamically.
By putting a hard limit on block size, you actually increase drastically the effect of spam, as we saw. Once the block is full of spam, transactions are hindered. This is an efficient DDOS of bitcoin. If the blocks are elastic, you can spam a lot, that will increase the size to some point, but transactions can go through unhampered, and you'd have to spam like crazy in order to have an efficient DDOS. Hard limits make DDOSsing of bitcoin in fact much easier.
Satoshi was clearly in favour of very large blocks if useful, and he explains that in the beginning, where he tells us that most normal users shouldn't run a full node, "left to specialists with farms of specialized hardware". That was in November 2008.
People explained him that putting a hard limit in the protocol would require a hard fork at a point, which might be problematic. He wavered that away: just changing a constant in the code.
Maybe Satoshi did put a "time bomb" in his bitcoin system because he considered it an experiment from which we have to learn, and it should self-destroy at a certain point in order for us to make a new system with better properties. Maybe Satoshi wanted to put in a trap, so that only if his heirs were smart enough to have good governance, and if they cannot even change a simple parameter, then it is better that this system dies. Maybe Satoshi wanted to develop a whole crypto market, and needed to put something nasty in bitcoin, in order to make it lose its first mover advantage and open up the market.
Maybe Satoshi was designing a reserve currency for big, dark, deep state players, and only needed Joe Sixpack to ramp it up, but needed him to be pushed out of bitcoin once the system was up and running, to leave it to the big boys. Claiming it to be a currency of the people, but at the same time, making its use too expensive for the people, and only allow the big boys on it, was maybe his hidden plan.
But I think that Satoshi simply made a mistake. He made many. Bitcoin is quite ill designed. That doesn't take away the fact that he was a bright mind. We have hindsight he didn't have. But he was wrong on this one, as he was wrong on many choices.
Wow! This response gave me lot of possible scenarios which I didn't think of! Thanks for the great insight/thoughts @dinofelis
Among all the possible scenarios listed, my personal favorite is:
Quote
Maybe Satoshi did put a "time bomb" in his bitcoin system because he considered it an experiment from which we have to learn, and it should self-destroy at a certain point in order for us to make a new system with better properties. Maybe Satoshi wanted to put in a trap, so that only if his heirs were smart enough to have good governance, and if they cannot even change a simple parameter, then it is better that this system dies. Maybe Satoshi wanted to develop a whole crypto market, and needed to put something nasty in bitcoin, in order to make it lose its first mover advantage and open up the market.
Re: "Man From Earth" Producers Pirate Movie Themselves, Accept Crypto Donations
That is an interesting take, quite different from the conventional film industry. I will put the movie in my watchlist!
Has anyone seen this movie? How was it?
Has anyone seen this movie? How was it?
The movie mentioned in my post is the 2nd part. I have watched both parts and first one is awesome! If you want to watch both, you must start from the 1st part.
Here's the link to 1st part:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0756683/
https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/9340598/The.Man.From.Earth.2007.1080p.BluRay.x264.anoXmous
BTW, please consider donating something if you enjoy the movie. I already donated.
Sure, Thank You!
Re: Why the fuck did Satoshi implement the 1 MB blocksize limit?
@OP, I agree with your argument. As per game theory and the assumptions you have made, I don't see a reason why the block size limit has to stay at 1 MB.
Newbie question here, is there any way to change the block size limit? How feasible it is to do? Would it require a hard fork?
Newbie question here, is there any way to change the block size limit? How feasible it is to do? Would it require a hard fork?
The activity number is determined in this way:
time = number of two-week periods in which you've posted since your registration
activity = min(time * 14, posts)
Rough summary of what this means: If you post once per day on average, then you will eventually get the maximum number of activity points that you can get. Posting more than once per day on average is useless for increasing activity. The maximum number of activity points you can get is 1 per day, but your activity score only updates every two weeks. Therefore, it will take about 100 days to get 100 activity if you post once per day on average.
Activity is updated every hour.
time = number of two-week periods in which you've posted since your registration
activity = min(time * 14, posts)
Rough summary of what this means: If you post once per day on average, then you will eventually get the maximum number of activity points that you can get. Posting more than once per day on average is useless for increasing activity. The maximum number of activity points you can get is 1 per day, but your activity score only updates every two weeks. Therefore, it will take about 100 days to get 100 activity if you post once per day on average.
Activity is updated every hour.
I have couple of questions - In above post, there are two statements:
1. "your activity score only updates every two weeks"
2. "Activity is updated every hour."
Is the activity updated every hour or once every two weeks?
The 2nd question I have is on how time is calculated.
time = number of two-week periods in which you've posted since your registration
I joined this forum roughly 10 days ago and by above formula, my time value should be 1 and Activity value should be 14. But my activity value is currently 28. Is the above formula changed since it was originally posted?
May I know when my activity value will reach 30 to become Jr Member?
Thanks!