Search content
Sort by
Showing 14 of 14 results by Vesel
You would have coins on both chains, so you'd have twice as many coins. The combined value still be a lot lower than before the fork, as nobody wants a coin that just splits into different mutually incompatible coins. So the scenario would be very bad for your investment, for sure.
BU nodes go offline. but the diversity of other nodes kept going..
however if everything was just core.. expect another 2013 event.
diversity and more then one codebase is GOOD for the network
It's good for Bitcoin that it splits in to several different mutually incompatible coins? The combined price of the coins would plummet for sure. Noone wants to use multiple currencies that are hardly different, yet still unfungible.however if everything was just core.. expect another 2013 event.
diversity and more then one codebase is GOOD for the network
Quote
relying on one team that has one king is no better than fiat. and that is bad.
To be fair, it's BU that wants a "president" and a "secretary" of Bitcoin. No joke. https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/articlesQuote
if there was a bug in sgwit requiring a downgrade. anyone with funds on segwit keys cant spend them.. locked
Not true. SegWit requires only a soft fork, meaning that it has stricter rules, not incompatible rules, to the original protocol. That way SegWit transactions are compatible with non-SegWit nodes. Don't think people are just going to run nodes out of the kindness of their hearts and to use a disgusting amount of resources on their part. It's tough to say, but people are going to need to be incentivesd in some sort of fashion to be able to do something like this.
People say that "why don't you just run a node" "it'll make everything better, blah blah blah"
People don't understand that without some sort of payment to be using my computers resources, power and so on, I highly doubt that I'd be wanting to join in. It's not like I don't belive in Bitcoin, I do.
I just don't see a reason and a reason (personal gain here) has to be made for it.
I'm not running a node out of altruism alone. I do it because I'm heavily invested in bitcoin, and want it to succeed. There are a lot of other people here as well that are heavily invested in bitcoin. We have the same interest, and should join forces. Running nodes is how we can help protect the network and voice our opinions on how to move forward. Choosing which blocks and transactions to accept and relay by running a node is some of the only hard power that users have over the network.People say that "why don't you just run a node" "it'll make everything better, blah blah blah"
People don't understand that without some sort of payment to be using my computers resources, power and so on, I highly doubt that I'd be wanting to join in. It's not like I don't belive in Bitcoin, I do.
I just don't see a reason and a reason (personal gain here) has to be made for it.
Where can you find real unbiased information on both though? That's what I find impossible. Is there a blog that's dug through the bullshit and censorship to actually show what each side would like to do? I'm all for running a node but I'd like to choose the side I believe in.
Did you read about the recent sudden sharp drop in BU nodes? If not, do that. It is all you really need to know to be sure you don't want to hand responsibility over a $20 Billion network to reckless amateurs that don't review the code they crappy code they write. We can just be glad that this bug was exposed before a hard fork, not after.95% of Bitcoin developers work for Bitcoin Core. That's really all we non-technical people need to know to understand which side we should support. Trusting BU developers over Core developers is like trusting the 1% of climate scientists that claim that global warming isn't man-made. It's only on this forum that the two sides are "equal". Everyone unbiased by economic interests and with some insight seem to prefer SegWit over simply just increasing blocksize, as it's the technically superior solution to the scaling problem. SegWit should be completely uncontroversial for investors and users. Only the miners don't want it, because they'd rather squeeze us for transaction fees.
Let's support the network and give voice to our opinion on how to scale Bitcoin by running a full Core node each. It is probably one of the best investments we can do in our BTC investments. Be sure to check that your node is reachable here. If it is not, then you have to open your 8333 port and try again.
If you can mine, then even better! Be sure to join a mining pool that is positive to SegWit.
I, for one, have done my part from this day.
https://bitcoin.org/en/download
If you can mine, then even better! Be sure to join a mining pool that is positive to SegWit.
I, for one, have done my part from this day.
https://bitcoin.org/en/download
Fixed it for you. Bitcoin mining is a means to an end, not an end in itself.
I wish you could understand the difference between
A. signaling readiness for a new feature, and
B. voting for a new features
I know it's all very subtle and you don't do nuance, but please stop spreading the lie that miners are in charge of Bitcoin.
They are not and never will be. That's not how any of this works.
Just because there are armed guards in front of the bank it doesn't mean those armed guards make executive decisions for the bank.
They are just hired muscle and may be fired if they forget their place and get uppity.
Bitcoins easily. Who invests in gold these days? Only people 50+ in my experience.
When my generation, the tech savvy Millennials, wants to invest in safe haven assets some time in the future, I think they will go for an asset that is more limited in supply, more transportable, divisible and fungible, easier to secure and easier to trade than gold, namely BTC. Not to say that bitcoin has greater potential for price appreciation than gold, which seems to go nowhere in terms of value.
When my generation, the tech savvy Millennials, wants to invest in safe haven assets some time in the future, I think they will go for an asset that is more limited in supply, more transportable, divisible and fungible, easier to secure and easier to trade than gold, namely BTC. Not to say that bitcoin has greater potential for price appreciation than gold, which seems to go nowhere in terms of value.
I can't vote or see results.No altcoin is currently scalable. Ethereum is probably the only project that has all the incredients to make it work: funds, a huge capable development team, a roadmap, plans how to scale it ( securely ) and support and backing from corporations and institutions.
Yeah, I already invested in ETH, because I think it is a promising altcoin as well, for various reasons:-already the largest altcoin by far, at least measured by market cap. Great for the network effect.
-active development
-receives praise from the usually very sober mainstream press, like Bloomberg
-transparent transactions, like with Bitcoin. No anonymity features, which would make it another niche coin for criminals and others with something to hide.
-smart contracts is a genuine invention and may become high in demand
-fast and cheap transactions, at least for the time being.
I'm just not sure how ETH would handle BitCoin like traffic.
Gulden (NLG). The team is great. There are enough funds. Community is really big & keeps on growing. Real users. Roadmap looks promising etc etc.
I'm not investing in national crypto currencies. That's like taking one step ahead and then two back. The future is global.What specifically do you mean by scalability?
The ability of the crypto currency to handle a large number of transactions in a timely manner for low or non-existing transaction fees.Litecoin
I'm not investing in a dead crypto currency either. AFAIK Litecoin is just a copy of BitCoin with some tweaked parameters.Seeing as there is no solution on the horizon for the congestion on the Bitcoin network,
even if this were true, you still have a better "portfolio" with only bitcoin Quote
I want to diversify my portfolio into some crypto currencies that are more scalable.
if you want profit since you are calling it portfolio then all the altcoins are viable options, and scalability of them is irrelevant.Quote
I wonder which altcoins have the highest transaction capacity.
there are a lot of altcoins with faster block generation (which is causing lots of other troubles by the way) but it has some more "capacity potential"!closest example: Litecoin
Quote
I also wonder how Ethereum and Dash specifically would do if they had the number of transactions that bitcoin has x 10.
i also want to know this also would love knowing how they are going to handle the big size of their blockchain after 8 years when it was x10
Seeing as there is no solution on the horizon for the congestion on the Bitcoin network, I want to diversify my portfolio into some crypto currencies that are more scalable. I wonder which altcoins have the highest transaction capacity. I also wonder how Ethereum and Dash specifically would do if they had the number of transactions that bitcoin has x 10.
"Past performance is not indicative of future results."
For me, all I need to know is that the long-term trend (since mid 2015) is a steady increase in price, possibly even exponential growth. So I'm hoarding & holding.
Hvordan burde man gå fram dersom man ønsket å starte en ny norsk/nordisk Bitcoin-børs, dersom man ikke har spesielle tekniske ferdigheter?
Det er en liten drøm av meg, for jeg tror at Bitcoins Norway ville være lett å utkonkurrere med sine høye priser, dårlige sikkerhet og elendige software.
Det er en liten drøm av meg, for jeg tror at Bitcoins Norway ville være lett å utkonkurrere med sine høye priser, dårlige sikkerhet og elendige software.