choosing ICO at the end is good in my opinion because they will be listed on the exchange and you will get a good ico will not wait long when it will be on sale.

I think that people are holding their altcoins in this volatile market because these altcoins have potential to increase its value and make profit on it in the future and they believe in a future with cryptocurrency.

-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Today is the 14th of April 2018 and I am abyssobenthonic (u=10277) staking my address on bitcointalk
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
1LGsGny2WN4kNSgKK7obJEbeEeJJkW4T7J
Hx5Ion0zzp4StdX8IH6Z+qrNsQszhWziNAQIzJqk/GNSJknvJmUwMmB+ThjDWBjsLfG8EtbfuonguPnFUxiGXQ0=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In my opinion, the market is very stable now, no rush pump and dump in the past few weeks, I think this stuation will last for several months and winter is coming. Anyway, Ibelieve it will recover one day.

Many altcoins can not develop confidently for years. Another drawback is that they are addicted to bitcoin, and very much. It makes at the slightest apprehension - gets rid of coins.               

I think bitcoin is a currency and also an asset because with bitcoin we can buy something and we make bitcoin as an asset for the future because bitcoin is very profitable

It depends on what they want to be when they grow up. There are useful skills to learn from bitcoin, not just mathematics and computing, but also trading skills and market research. Education should come first though of course

In my opinion, you should never let go of a more stable job to focus on bitcoin or cryptocurrency itself. First of all, we know that bitcoin is so volatile that it is never impossible to have a 0$ rate of it. Do not leave a stable opportunity for bitcoin. Bht you can always do them at the same time, you just have to manage your time.

before the children were taught to play in a monopoly and the children had a vision and the ability to handle money. Now the world is changing and it is necessary to introduce new games and teach children from early childhood how to use electronic money. our children have an open mind, they are ready for the newest technologies.

We don't know if that because the price of bitcoin is not stable sometime they are going low and going up,i think that i the demand are still high the price must be going high also that's why the price are not be stable.

I once sold altcoin so fast because I needed money and was in debt. I sometimes regret selling my altcoin so fast before the coin starts to rise. So this time when I get paid bounty of altcoin, I will be patient to hold and keep it.

Я смотрю тема набирает обороты, людей интересуется все больше и больше, это доказывает практичный интерес пользователей к новому продукту. Я тем временем опробовал звонки в Азию, все как обычно, на высшем уровне  Зибер достойный продукт для инвестиций.

В современных VoIP GSM шлюзах существует так называемые модульная структура, являющаяся частью анти анти-фрод системы, которые позволяют снизить нагрузку на отдельные базовые станции оператора, размещая шлюзы в разных сотах сети. И смена IMEI в таких шлюзах тоже предусмотрена.

Его еще нет на маркетах, будет доступен после ICO. Скачай с сайта https://ziber.io/#download

Уважаемый, немного не верно. Мастернода в контекте зайбера, это узел, который занимается маршрутизацией трафика, направлением звонков и прочего... 

Платформа Ziber построена на децентрализованной блокчейн системе мастернод, расположенных по всему миру и установленных на сервера или VPS. Мобильное приложение загружается на смартфоны (с операционной системой  Андроид или iOS) и перенаправляет VOIP-звонки с мобильных телефонов, интернет приложений и других устройств в общую блокчейн систему. Все участники сети зарабатывают, используя свои устройства в качестве прокси сервера для маршрутизации. А люди не подключенные к Ziber, платят им за совершаемые междугородние и международные звонки.

Я пользовался зайбером, звонки из США в РФ отлично идут, качество понра и задержек не было. Надеюсь дальше пойдет в том же духею.

Schumer is, for all intents and purposes, the Senator from Wall St. (especially since Dodd retired)... the smash-the-corporate-machine rhetoric is probably not preferred by him (whether he's a leftist or not is open to some debate, perhaps)

The most dangerous place in Washington is between Chucky Schumer and a TV camera.

You're making a wild-ass guess there.

Without making a wild-ass guess, assuming that 5/6 of the average hashrate over the previous difficulty computation period drops out in the next period:

The number of blocks a miner can expect to solve in a given time period is independent of the current network hashrate (being a function strictly of the difficulty and the miner's hashrate: if difficulty means that 2.8*10^15 hashes are required to solve a block, and you're hashing at 100 megahashes/sec, then you'll average 1/7777.78 blocks solved per hour).  Therefore the expected reward from coin generation is unchanged regardless of the network's hashrate.  The number of transactions that can reasonably be expected to be included per block would increase by a factor of roughly six (probably less as some transactions may have inputs from within the previous hour).  So if the transaction fees before were averaging n% of the generation reward, they would be 6xn% of the generation reward now, where x is the increase in average transaction fees added by users to get their transactions processed faster.

****

Even if transaction fees double, the increase in topline for a miner is roughly 12%: if it was 100 mBTC/hr before, then it's 112 mBTC/hr now.  The only miners who can be reasonably expected to start mining are thus those whose reckoning of the cost of mining (however they may reckon that cost) is between 100 and 112 mBTC/hr (if their reckoning is a greater cost than 112 mBTC/hr, they're not going to start; if their reckoning is below 100 mBTC/hr, they're already mining).  How much mining capacity falls into that camp, I don't know, but it's probably not prudent to assume that it's enough to make things much better.

There's bound to be a delay in the transaction fees increasing: many users don't pay a huge amount of attention to the forums or to the blockchain.  They won't find out that transaction processing is slow until they've tried to send coins and found that it's not getting confirmed.  At that point, it's too late to adjust the fee and probably not worth sending the coins again with a bigger fee.

Whether any benefit accrues to any individual user in terms of processing speed in this situation from upping the transaction fee they're willing to pay is also questionable.  An individual user deciding he's willing to pay 1 BTC to move 1 bitcent is unlikely to increase the network hashrate in the short term (catching a 1 BTC tx fee is great for the miner who solves that particular block, but what miner is going to decide to start mining because of that fee, given that the odds of solving the block aren't that great (and in the case of deciding to join a pool, one's share of that isn't going to be significant)).  If even such a dramatic increase in tx fee by a given user is unlikely to noticeably increase the speed at which the transaction gets included in the chain, is there really any incentive for any user to increase the fee?  If you have something that needs to be done by somebody for the common good but that something is to the detriment of the one who does it, don't be surprised if that needed thing doesn't get done (unless some means is developed for the community to reward those who "took one for the team", but there's no real guarantee of such a means developing in this context).

You seem to have the persistent misunderstanding common among many of a generally leftist persuasion as to what exactly "limited liability" means.  All it means is that the simple act of being a shareholder in a corporation does not by itself open you to liability for what the corporation did (the operative theory being that you as a shareholder don't have sufficient control over the micro-level doings of the corporation).  It does not mean that the corporation, its officers, and employees have any limits on their liability for the actions of the corporation or its agents.