Token Daily

6 3

1 2

2

3

2

3 5

1 3

14 2

ChangeNow_io 7 hs ago

Microtransactions, but with crypto? Sweet.

3

pathego 11 hs ago

Changing the world!

1

grier_maze Yesterday

Many industries are turning into blockchain right now and this marks the first time any blockchain game has been able to accomplish.

0

NickWassmer Yesterday

gon surely buy ps4 right away lol

0

pete_madison Yesterday

hope something good comes out of it

0

majomhus Yesterday

Some people will just eat up about anything.

8

minimalniemand Yesterday

What’s it supposed to do that a database can’t? Serious question.

6

fs_swe Yesterday

Trade in game items with anyone, even someone not playing the game, and for any other token or ETH, without any companies having to offer this service.

15

Quethrosar 7 hs ago

You are assuming it's a public blockchain. Since when can public block chain scale for real time trading? If you want to say ok its yours under the condition you might lose it in 1 minute then ya......

1

SusanForeman Yesterday

What is the difference between this idea and Novatoken?

1

minimalniemand Yesterday

Interesting! I haven’t thought of that. What would a person not playing the game do with these in game items though?

2

NinjaTap Yesterday

Maybe a use case could be another game company builds a game that can import items/whatever from other games etc... Would be pretty cool if lets say I play dota 2 and love a particular weapon. Well maybe in WoW I could use the same weapon, who knows what people will think of.

6

lexsoor 9 hs ago

The actual ingame asset is not being transfered though, It's just the right to use it in that game. Same story as cryptokitties once the (centrally) hosted servers where the assets are hosted are down then all you have left is an ID on the blockchain.

2

WeLiveInaBubble 5 hs ago

The interesting thing for me with gaming NFTs is that the same item can be used for different objects in different games. So if you earn a high level sword in a medieval game, that same game company may make a futuristic shooter in which you could use that same NFT as a high level plasma gun. Or even combining items from different games to create a stronger item in a game. The fact that they have tradable value makes them even more awesome. In the future I believe all game items will be NFTs rather than held by the game developers who can create their own markets to benefit only themselves.

1

lexsoor 4 hs ago

> the same item can be used for different objects in different games It can also be used for different objects in the same game as the actual game servers (and your client software) are under control of the game developer > So if you earn a high level sword in a medieval game, that same game company may make a futuristic shooter in which you could use that same NFT as a high level plasma gun. Or even combining items from different games to create a stronger item in a game. Same can be achieved right now with normal databases, of the top of my head examples such as special weapons in TF2 for owning other games, having certain achievements (in other games) etc. come to mind > The fact that they have tradable value makes them even more awesome. CSGO, Dota 2, TF2 all have tradable items (which ironically in the context of blockchain have all been used for money laundering and underage gambling schemes) > In the future I believe all game items will be NFTs rather than held by the game developers who can create their own markets to benefit only themselves. Loot boxes and the marketisation of games has been a big misfortune to endusers, you really think more capitalistic adventures are what users want? Yea ok...

0

gweeha45 Yesterday

fuuuuuuuuuuuud

0

monkeymamo Yesterday

Hope this starts another good run for ethereum

1

Texian_Fusilier 2 hs ago

I want it to, but something tells me it wont.

1

DrDQDPM Yesterday

Their descriptive captions for each feature is riddled with typos. What could go wrong?

29

ThatMorningAlarm 1 h ago

Let's just hope their code isn't!

1

enkrypt3d Yesterday

and that ungodly font! ugh

2

throwaway_cabe Yesterday

Great news. Cant wait to try it out on my never used PS4

1

SolidFaiz Yesterday

Hahahah same here!! For me gaming is the biggest disappointment this generation

0

CryptoOnly Yesterday

Play Read Dead Redemption 2 and then attempt to repeat that statement.

2

Nikandro Yesterday

Can I have your PS4 since you never use it?

9

EtherFLIPfan Yesterday

Awesome, although I couldn't find ethereum in the article or on the website.

0

Louisoneth Yesterday

“Arcade Distillery, a game developer that creates titles for PS Vita, PS4, Xbox One and Nintendo Switch, is gearing up to launch a new game for the PS4 built around the Ethereum (ETH) blockchain.”

10

EtherFLIPfan Yesterday

I am blind. CONFIRMED

7

Pewter_Pawn Yesterday

Damn that is pretty cool. Godspeed. Im from EOS camp.

2

Pasttuesday Yesterday

Shouldn’t pick a camp at all. What’s the point

9

Pewter_Pawn Yesterday

Yes i agree. I believe all (almost) blockchain projects is good for adoption. I guess the point is that a lot of people do not see or think they could coexist togheter in this sphere, as they "steal" users from another, which further is determined by valuation of the coins. The camp thing is just a halfserious comment towars the hatred EOS gets from everyone, primarly ETHs. Its disstatefull and i should not have brought it up.

1

jtnichol Yesterday

Had the tables been turned and eth raised 4 billion dollars of EOS you can understand why people in this sub get a little heated.

3

Pewter_Pawn Yesterday

Yeah, so true. Sometimes one forget to turn the table.

1

fishing_at_the_Beach Yesterday

Hopefully using something with Hoard and OMG.

6

pcpgivesmewings Yesterday

That seems like it could be a good fit.

3

elizabethgiovanni Yesterday

Yoooo nice! Let the flood begin!

7

3

13 2

rBitcoinMod 5 hs ago

Your submission has been flagged for removal because it doesn't meet the quality standards for /r/Bitcoin at this time.

^^I ^^am ^^a ^^bot ^^and ^^cannot ^^respond. ^^Please ^^contact ^^/r/Bitcoin ^^moderators ^^directly ^^via ^^mod ^^mail ^^if ^^you ^^have ^^questions.

1

Arvi89 New to Crypto 8 hs ago

Wait for it for a real solution without mobile data, you heard it first \^\^

1

jakesonwu Crypto God | BTC: 35 QC | CC: 16 QC 10 hs ago

There has been satellite and sms forever. AM radio is being worked on.

1

mickhick95 Yesterday

This is really important to the largest humanitarian movement the modern world has ever seen.

1

_darkhorse_ New to Crypto Yesterday

Yeah... And you can "mine" with a pencil and paper

1

askepott1 Yesterday

So it's multiple antennas that are connected to each other using some kind of a protocol on radio spectrum. Isn't that internet? :D

3

Dziabadu Yesterday

Nope. This is peer to peer self configurable network with just few selected apps. No netflix or pron. Very cool stuff. I'd create node but I live in place without much potential coverage

3

askepott1 Yesterday

What kind of frequency does it use and won't the authorities try to bring it down? AFAIK, radio spectrum is already quite polluted and there are multiple bands that are reserved for military and such.

3

Dziabadu 10 hs ago

I am no expert in this. They use old routers with modified software.

1

kilorat Crypto God | BTC: 101 QC | CC: 17 QC Yesterday

Fucking clickbait.

Title: Bitcoin Offline Transactions Are Now Possible

Quote from body of article: The transaction doesn’t work entirely offline

then it's not fucking offline, is it?

14

almondicecream Crypto Nerd Yesterday

I am going to concert

4

antonserious Yesterday

Stupid clickbait, it’s not offline it’s using mesh network

10

chabes Yesterday

That’s extra annoying, because * offline bitcoin transactions already exist (opendime, for example) * mesh is cool and interesting. The headline should mention mesh * headlines should be accurate. Clickbait is poisoning the web

10

kingo86 Yesterday

buh mah clickz

1

verslalune Redditor for 30 days. Yesterday

You can broadcast bitcoin transactions using smoke signals, if you wanted to.

2

TemporaryPudding Redditor for 6 months. Yesterday

Ah that's what happened in California.

14

Suckcuttings New to Crypto 10 hs ago

Start of the bull run? Now that made me worried.

1

Fuddemy Yesterday

Savage

2

NHLroyrocks Crypto Nerd | CC: 25 QC Yesterday

This title is a bit click baity for what the article actually says.

If you are connected to a device that is connected to a device that is connected to the internet (eventually) then you are NOT offline. Your infrastructure of nodes with communication protocols between them is a far stretch from having nothing.

Is this specific infrastructure cheaper than many other alternatives?

Yes

Would I rather have this than a world wide satellite system in the long run?

No

9

ABitcoinAllBot Yesterday

Here is the link to the original comment thread. Or you can comment here to start a discussion. Author: zcOfficial

1

OsrsNeedsF2P Privacy Advocate Yesterday

They were always possible

33

Gaspa79 Crypto God | BTC: 32 QC | CC: 23 QC Yesterday

I mean they're not wrong. They are now possible, but they were possible in the past, too. Yeah that's silly my bad

8

TheDudeNeverBowls New to Crypto Yesterday

Ok, Mitch.

3

9 6

frescodicredito 2 hs ago

"A number of different people from various organization assisted in this research. We would like to thank Daniel Choi and Trey Zhong from the Whiteblock team; Shahan Khatchadourian, Ben Edgington, and Nicolos Lioshon from the PegaSys team at Consensys; Wayne Chang, Grec Rocco, and Steve Gattuso from the Alpine team at ConsenSys; and Antione Toulme from the ConsenSys Core Engineering team".

That's why is a biased report... fucking ConsenSys everywhere

2

ElMasAltoDeLosEnanos Crypto God | EOS: 66 QC | ICX: 19 QC | CC: 16 QC Yesterday

Again the same shit paid by Consensys which claims that EOS can only reach 250 TPS in optimal lab conditions, when it already reached 4000 TPS in real usage. That not only shows how poor they research methods are but that they didn't even bother to look for real EOS mainnet data.

2

nedupaul Yesterday

Basically a regurgitation of the whiteblock report, funded again by the same group of people.

4

lumenrising Yesterday

Since Dan and these researchers both appear biased, why don’t both of these parties definitively put this issue to rest by releasing a benchmark script so we can replicate the experiments over AWS? Reproducibility is key here given how much paid shilling/fudding is in this space. Token holders need to collectively demand these verification of important claims. Some of us, like Bitmex research, could in theory verify everything ourselves but block.one should release their experimental code and procedures for full transparency.

3

abysstriumphant Crypto Nerd Yesterday

EOS still alive??? They better start use their money on at least some PR because I haven't heard good shit from them for like 4-5 months now.

0

IllegalAlien333 Crypto God | EOS: 154 QC Yesterday

Get off reddit and you'll see EOS is all over crypto news. Here's a nice developments [https://cryptomenow.com/mythical-games-raises-16m-series-a-to-build-games-on-eos/](https://cryptomenow.com/mythical-games-raises-16m-series-a-to-build-games-on-eos/)  There's a twitter link around somewhere. You'll find that just because you haven't heard about something doesn't mean it's not actually happening.

3

ElMasAltoDeLosEnanos Crypto God | EOS: 66 QC | ICX: 19 QC | CC: 16 QC Yesterday

https://medium.com/@danlevine/a-response-to-last-weeks-eos-analysis-e71d17c3359b

3

PrFaustroll Crypto God | CC: 34 QC Yesterday

This is actually pretty huge. Really good insight there!

0

_degenerategambler Yesterday

B. Performance

As observed in the section on performance, the transaction throughput in the system does not exceed 250 TPS even in optimal settings with 0 ms of latency and 0% packet loss.

As observed by reality, the system has exceeded well into 3000 TPS. Never mind this though, I wonder what other falsehoods are buried in technical jargon most won't understand?

Lastly, we’d like to thank the following groups for their committed support to this open ecosystem research effort: Cosmos, the Ethereum Community Fund, IMToken, Amis, Status, Maker Dao, Transference Fund, 1KX, CoinFund, the Enterprise Ethereum Alliance, Loom, Grid+, PlaTON, MixLabs, Web3 Foundation, Ledger Capital, Microsoft, Google, ConsenSys, and Bo Shen (Founding partner of Fenbushi Capital and Co-founder of Bitshares).

Oh.... that explains a lot.

6

akairokun Yesterday

This is Ethereum interest groups payed analysis against competition. There is one more metric and that is user experience and I think EOS is doing pretty well there. User experience like Meet.One wallet with application store integrated into I haven’t seen in any other blockchain so far.

2

T-1090 Yesterday

It would be awsome if Dan could give his take on this.

5

userbrn1 Yesterday

Rough beatdown of EOS from what I can see...

0

25 6

somebody3830 1 h ago

How is ABC any different? Doesn't seem to meet the listing criteria either.

1

Kain_niaK 51 mins ago

What is ABC?

1

somebody3830 15 mins ago

Bitcoin Cash ABC is a protocol implementation of Bitcoin Cash. Bitcoin Cash split off into two incompatible implementations, Bitcoin Cash ABC and Bitcoin Cash SV.

1

FlipDetector 4 hs ago

Kraken is shady shit as well. I lost like 0.9BCH a year ago because of them.

1

Kraken-James Redditor for less than 60 days 20 mins ago

Hi [u/FlipDetector](https://www.reddit.com/user/FlipDetector), Kraken support here. We're very sorry to hear this. In case there's something we could do to assist you, please, feel free to contact via Live Chat or open a support ticket here: [https://support.kraken.com/hc/en-us/requests/new](https://support.kraken.com/hc/en-us/requests/new). Our Client Engagement Team will get back to you asap. 

1

Matti-Koopa 5 hs ago

I'm totally out of the loop in BSV. Can someone link me a semi-neutral writeup on this split?

1

libertarian0x0 Redditor for less than 6 months 7 hs ago

How very hard works. But from my point of view, Kraken is taking care of their costumers, informing BSV is risky.

3

ChangeNow_io 7 hs ago

This is the approach every exchange should take. You don't want to meddle with BSV unless you absolutely, explicitly know what you're doing. And even then, I would advise now getting involved with it, even though our service technically supports both.

2

NilacTheGrim 8 hs ago

Kraken gets it.

2

earthmoonsun 8 hs ago

I like it that they speak the truth explicitly.

2

lokojones 8 hs ago

Respect to Kraken, bold statement - they got balls

2

Fount4inhead 8 hs ago

Does Kraken automatically split BCH in to BCH and SV on deposit?

1

Kraken_Joseph 8 hs ago

We currently do not have funding enabled for bch and sv though once it is enabled the answer would be no. We will have seperate addresses generated for bch and sv. You will need to split them before depositing Feel free to send in a support ticket if you have any further enquiries

4

thabootyslayer 9 hs ago

Am I the only one who thinks it's weird that they are calling it Bitcoin SV and not Bitcoin Cash SV???? Is SV trying to separate themselves from Bitcoin Cash and align themselves more with core? I dunno, haven't kept up with this stupid drama really so excuse the ignorance.

3

DirkNovitzki Yesterday

CSW is a maniac

4

nynjawitay Yesterday

But there is no BCH/BSV trading pair :(

7

Kain_niaK Yesterday

There are no exchanges yet that accept BSV deposits.

2

Licho92 10 hs ago

I've already dumped it on southxchange. They wait 12 confirmations and let you transact. I sold it for 0.3 BCH! Best. Deal. Ever.

3

nynjawitay 10 hs ago

So? If (like your article says) you held BCH on Kraken, you will have BCH and BSV on Kraken that you can trade without being able to deposit more. They are adding 3 BSV pairs. It’s a shame they don’t have BCH/BSV. Then people could move directly between them instead of having to go through two trades with USD or something.

1

horsebadlydrawn Redditor for less than 60 days Yesterday

what it says makes perfect sense to me:

WARNING: Bitcoin SV does NOT meet Kraken’s usual listing requirements. It should be seen as an extremely high risk investment. There are many red flags that traders should be aware of:

No known wallets supporting replay protection (be careful!)
No support in major block explorers
Miners apparently subsidized or operating at a loss
Representatives threatening and openly hostile toward other chains
Chain’s survival may be mutually exclusive with other chains
Supply is temporarily constrained because of limited wallet support
Some large holders have indicated they’d be dumping everything ASAP
Kraken has done only very minimal code review

31

SadisticMetal 9 hs ago

Time to ditch Kraken, I guess. Not that I would ever consider using such a shitty exchange in the first place.

0

chalbersma Yesterday

Custodial losses taken on due to attacks originating from nChain or its affiliates will be socialized among all BSV holders on Kraken. Given the volatile state of the network and threats that have been made, Kraken cannot guarantee perfect custody of BSV.

Lols

8

emfyo 11 hs ago

socialized loses.. very Bitcoin. >The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks

0

chalbersma 9 hs ago

That's what happens with centralized coins like BSV.

7

emfyo 7 hs ago

That is not the situation. The scenario here is a centralized exchange, Kraken, acting as a central bank redistributing users funds to socialize loses.. much like what happened in USA during the financial crisis- a point that has often been pointed to by Bitcoiners as the cause for its creation

0

chalbersma 1 h ago

You're incorrect, because BSV activity is directly attributable to nChain and CSW who've already threatened exchainges with double spends. They're dishonest miners and these are reasonable protections made.

1

Phucknhell 2 hs ago

Yeah, nah

1

deletedcookies101 9 hs ago

Custodial exchanges just facilitate trade of bitcoin. They are not bitcoin and you shouldn't expect to have the security guarantees of it. If you want bitcoin security you have to hold your keys. Moreover this is not about bitcoin, it is about BSV which is at best a shitty bitcoin clone.

10

emfyo 9 hs ago

I don't have any coins on Kraken. Why would anyone deposit funds onto Kraken to trade when they say they will steal your coins to pay off loses.. how is that any different from what the US gov. did in response to 2008 financial crisis ? Taking money from individuals in the market to subsidize group loses. how is that even legal? why would you even begin excusing this behavior?

0

Kraken_Joseph 8 hs ago

Hi Emfyo, This post further explains our stance on the situation [https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9ybznh/kraken\_be\_carefull\_bsv\_is\_some\_shady\_shit/ea0l1sg](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9ybznh/kraken_be_carefull_bsv_is_some_shady_shit/ea0l1sg)

3

emfyo 7 hs ago

this is still not clear I can't deposit money on an exchange that is promising to scam me.. If your system fails and you do not properly manage customer coins that is not my fault and does not give you an excuse to begin stealing from others to pay off people who made bad trades. I do not have any coins on Kraken, the promise being made here is that if I deposit money onto Kraken and hold BSV that they will not hesitate to steal my coins and scam me in order to subsidize others loses.. I am a new customer who recently got verified with the intention of depositing money when I go to the bank. Luckily I did not make it in last week because I would be stuck with the mistake of having to deal with my funds being held hostage and stolen in the future

1

ReallyGFY Yesterday

Ver still own a big piece of Kraken?

2

Kain_niaK Yesterday

It's hard to find start-ups that Ver not invested in. He even funded Ripple labs.

9

ReallyGFY Yesterday

Fair enough.

2

Kain_niaK Yesterday

He is the guy known for selling his lambo in 2011 and use the money to buy more Bitcoin with.

9

livingRealLife Yesterday

Here is the summary:

IF YOU BUY THIS SHIT YOU ARE AN IDIOT.

20

KayRice Yesterday

Essentially making it clear the token will go to $0 ASAP.

13

zhell_ Yesterday

TL;DR:

if your chain is not as secure as you thought because *checkpoint* then don't blame yourself for not following nakamoto consensus, blame the ones that are ! We will privatize the profits to you and socialize the losses to them. That sounds like what the central bank or a socialist dictator would do ? no no no, because you are the one going to benefit from it, thus you should put all morality aside and accept it with open hands. You never had the chance to do all the evil things the central banks do, now you can. That's bitcoin's spirit baby ! Satoshi would be proud

0

Casimir1904 7 hs ago

Checkpoints in SV: [https://github.com/bitcoin-sv/bitcoin-sv/blob/master/src/chainparams.cpp#L204](https://github.com/bitcoin-sv/bitcoin-sv/blob/master/src/chainparams.cpp#L204)

2

zhell_ 6 hs ago

Done without any contentious forks. Checkpoints during a fork are another thing

1

Casimir1904 5 hs ago

It wasn't when BCH forked from BTC? [https://github.com/bitcoin-sv/bitcoin-sv/blob/master/src/chainparams.cpp#L233](https://github.com/bitcoin-sv/bitcoin-sv/blob/master/src/chainparams.cpp#L233)

2

zhell_ 5 hs ago

Of course it was. BCH can only survive because BTC miners support it indirectly Not the same for ABC vs SV miners

1

SILENTSAM69 11 hs ago

SV lost by every metric. They lost by hashwar. They lost by not having any nodes supporting their network. They lost by not even having any software support such as wallets. People like you need to realise that SV was a horrible proposal, and would have lead to a weaker network that is less capable of scaling. The stress test even showed this.

8

zhell_ 6 hs ago

Lost? Is the war over? Is the SV chain dead? Wallets? What do you make of handcash and centbee.. That's "not even any wallet" to you? What do you make of "longest accumulated hashpower"... You know, how Satoshi defined bitcoin. The ABC chain IS weak and will get reorg'd... But wait... Amaury just added some more checkpoints (true, check their github) so I guess that's secure now? Proof of Amaury adding more checkpoints everyday. Is that what ABC relies upon for security now? How is this not total centralization? Is total centralization secure? It did worked very well with the core team and the 1mb blocksize cap right? I am telling you : you are in an illusion. I did my best to warn you. ABC will get reorg'd and will freeze because of attacks. Those who only hold ABC coins will loose everything. It is not secure. Checkpoints were never for securing a war in a contentious fork. But go on. If you cannot listen because your illusion is too strong, real life will teach you the lesson in a more painful way. I don't care, I just want to be able to show how I predicted what is going to happen and tried to warn people.

1

jerseyjayfro 2 hs ago

amaury is adding more checkpoints every day? checkpoints are certainly not proof of work, and they are certainly not solutions to the byzantine general problem.

2

Tulip-Stefan 10 hs ago

It sounds as if you're describing BCH after the fork with bitcoin.

0

SILENTSAM69 9 hs ago

Not really, as BCH came out more prepared for a fork with walkers and software and such. We knew we were forking off of BTC. Also BCH came out more scalable than BTC, and has always had a stronger network capability. BCH has beaten BTC in terms of scaling. The only metric that BTC outperforms BCH is is the price of the coin, which really is a secondary issue.

4

Tulip-Stefan 9 hs ago

> Not really, as BCH came out more prepared for a fork with walkers and software and such. We knew we were forking off of BTC. Not really. SV has a wallet and multiple exchanges that are trading it. They knew they where forking off BCH. The BCH ecosystem was poor for at least a month after the work, with occasionally only a few blocks mined per 12 hour period due to broken difficulty adjustment algorithm. > Also BCH came out more scalable than BTC, SV is more scalable than BCH. You know the blocks are bigger, right? > and has always had a stronger network capability. Lol. > BCH has beaten BTC in terms of scaling. Also lol. > The only metric that BTC outperforms BCH is is the price of the coin, which really is a secondary issue. No, the only metric by which BCH outperforms BTC is your personal preference. The price is an important metric to gauge the preference of others. SV is a shitcoin, but let's not pretend that BCH was any less shit when it was first forked.

0

SILENTSAM69 9 hs ago

BCH actually fixed the difficulty adjustment algorithm. Yes they knew that with less hash it would take a bit, but it was fixed. BSV benefitted from this improved algorithm with their lower hashrate. There is more to scaling than blocksize. SV may advertise a larger blocksize, but not the ability to use larger blocks. ABC can more smoothly handle larger blocks, and fit more txs/MB than SV. This was all shown in the stress test that followed the fork. You laugh, but the evidence is there. BCH can process far more transactions than BTC, and has. Even after many years of waiting LN is still failing to scale. Now they are using an even worse Bitcoin Liquid which is a centralised trusted system. LBTC and LN are the kind of systems Bitcoin was intended to replace. Not be the backbone of. That said I have no problem with BTC being the institutional coin. They want to be a banking backbone then that is their deal. Probably better for that then Ripple.

3

Tulip-Stefan 6 hs ago

BCH fixed the difficulty algorithm a month after the fork, but now you are complaining about poor state of SV software three days after the fork. That is seriously biased. ABC doesn't fit more tx/MB than SV at all. Are ABC tx smaller? No, they are the same size. Is a ABC optimized better than SV? No, it's a fork of the same software. The stress test didn't show anything. ABC cannot process more transactions than BTC, unless you are talking about on-chain transactions only. Even if you are talking about on-chain transactions only, BTC generally processes more transactions than ABC. LN isn't "failing to scale", it's beta software that can [scale](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalability) with better scaling characteristics than on-chain. If others want to use liquid that's their choice, that is permissionless development. Liquid has use cases that are impossible to implement with classic on-chain transaction.

0

WikiTextBot 6 hs ago

**Scalability** Scalability is the capability of a system, network, or process to handle a growing amount of work, or its potential to be enlarged to accommodate that growth. For example, a system is considered scalable if it is capable of increasing its total output under an increased load when resources (typically hardware) are added. An analogous meaning is implied when the word is used in an economic context, where a company's scalability implies that the underlying business model offers the potential for economic growth within the company. Scalability, as a property of systems, is generally difficult to define and in any particular case it is necessary to define the specific requirements for scalability on those dimensions that are deemed important. *** ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28

1

cryptocached Yesterday

This shit still? What the fuck does a checkpoint in a BCH client have to do with the unreliable nature of BSV? What has Nakamoto consensus have to do with _anything_ between BCH and BSV? The potential for losses due to attacks by nChain and their affiliates is in regards to Kraken's custody of BSV. They are legitimately concerned that nChain might attack BSV and BSV holders. They're warning you that not only has BSV failed to be recognized as a continuation of BCH, it is also going to get absolutely shit on by the market and the predators who constructed the whole farce are probably going to try to fuck every last one of their bag-holding victims on the way out.

18

livingRealLife Yesterday

Kraken is afraid of a reorg which will happen if SV wins the hash war. Maybe you are smarter than Kraken ? If you own SV and ABC at this point the odds are that you will lose most or all of your money.

0

cryptocached Yesterday

>Kraken is afraid of a reorg which will happen if SV wins the hash war. Just making shit up now. BSV can't reorg BCH. The miners could _potentially_ reorg BCH by becoming BCH miners, but that's nothing new.

8

Tulip-Stefan 10 hs ago

Everybody, including SV, can reorg several BCH blocks given some hashpower and enough luck.

0

cryptocached 10 hs ago

Not by mining BSV blocks they can't.

4

livingRealLife Yesterday

That is what Kraken said , can you read ?

0

xman5 Yesterday

LOL spinning faster than the speed of light... spin moar...

3

zhell_ Yesterday

no relation. Just that everyone here was claiming that the war has ended because ABC won by using a checkpoint. And now you realize that this is not true as the checkpoint adds 0 security and Kraken just admitted they expect some reorgs. Kraken is not at all concerned that nChain might attack SV holders, read again: >**Custodial losses taken on due to attacks originating from nChain or its affiliates will be socialized among all BSV holders on Kraken.** They are saying that if SV attacks ABC or any chain, and ABC users loose their coin, they will socialize the losses among SV holders. A pure socialist regime program, now in bitcoin for the benefit of all ABC people ! But go on, saying you "won" a war just because of a checkpoint when your chain can still get reorg'd seems great since you are all cheering. PS I used to be totally neutral and still am, but the amount of hypocrisy and lies I see in this sub in the last few days makes me crazy. Maybe now even more than Craig's threats and dickish behavior 

0

LexGrom Yesterday

> the war has ended It has not

0

Kain_niaK Yesterday

Just for somebody else reading this. A checkpoint is like moving the genesis block forward in time, and you can't reorg past the genesis block. When an entire network is running software with a check point and somebody tried reorg past it, even if they'd have 99% of the hash the other 1% can't accept that chain as valid cause the hashes of the blockheaders won't match the ones in the checkpoint.

9

jerseyjayfro 2 hs ago

um lol, you absolutely can reorg past the genesis block, if you have enough hashpower.

1

Kain_niaK 49 mins ago

The genesis block does not reference a previous block. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Genesis_block

1

jerseyjayfro 28 mins ago

so what? create another one, if you got the hashpower.

1

livingRealLife Yesterday

That checkpoint is now 490 blocks ago , that can all be completely erased.

2

Kain_niaK Yesterday

Sure buddy. In 18 months.

6

Kain_niaK Yesterday

Even CSW has a better understanding of Bitcoin than you, which means you know absolutely nothing.

10

cryptocached Yesterday

Of course you strip the context from that quote. >Custodial losses taken on due to attacks originating from nChain or its affiliates will be socialized among all BSV holders on Kraken. **Given the volatile state of the network and threats that have been made, Kraken cannot guarantee perfect custody of BSV.**

6

coyote7u2 Redditor for less than 60 days Yesterday

It is, production of a psycho who claims to be the god of crypto, what could we say?

3

Bttc Yesterday

It's online and trading. Just dumped my BSV for BCH.

18

Kain_niaK Yesterday

Did you deposit BSV?

5

Bttc Yesterday

I think it's only for people who left BCH on the exchange so it could be split, sorry!

7

DASK 7 hs ago

PSA: if you are expecting a split in a coin that Kraken carries, they have always been among the very first to credit it for coins on exchange.

1

AnotherBitcoinUser Redditor for less than 30 days Yesterday

Miners apparently subsidized or operating at a loss
Chain’s survival may be mutually exclusive with other chains

Making BAB a similar risk.

Some large holders have indicated they’d be dumping everything ASAP

Our research does not in any way consider whether the price is currently justified, or likely to go up or down in the future.

It doesn't?

0

SILENTSAM69 11 hs ago

What are you even trying to say?

2

Kain_niaK Yesterday

Ali Baba?

7

LexGrom Yesterday

"We will allow u to trade this shit, but completely washing our hands off"

26

ericreid9 Yesterday

Great I’m glad they are opening it up. Let the market decides the respective tokens values.

10

btcfork Yesterday

I now like Kraken even more.

42

barcode_guy Yesterday

Damn. That's pretty aggressive language. It's clear Kraken is expecting some shady shit if their warning they will socialize losses among BSV holders.

Edit: For anyone that wants a tldr:

"Custodial losses taken on due to attacks originating from nChain or its affiliates will be socialized among all BSV holders on Kraken. Given the volatile state of the network and threats that have been made, Kraken cannot guarantee perfect custody of BSV."

71

mtrycz 9 hs ago

> Custodial losses taken on due to attacks originating from nChain or its affiliates will be socialized among all BSV holders on Kraken. Given the volatile state of the network and threats that have been made, Kraken cannot guarantee perfect custody of BSV. wow

3

UpstairsAdagio Redditor for less than 90 days 10 hs ago

They are a top exchange. I have said it before, they are doibg things the right way and will be here in 10 years. Will contine to be my on ramp. Thanks u/jespow

10

alanfuji Yesterday

That’s the one sentence that doesn’t make sense and I’m guessing they didn’t think it through... if any affiliate of nChain attacks any blockchain they penalize BSV holders on kraken? nChain wouldn’t attack their own chain, so I’m not sure how else to interpret that.

3

cryptocached 11 hs ago

>nChain wouldn’t attack their own chain, Wight has threatened changes to BSV that would allow miners to "recover" coins associated with addresses that spend in unapproved ways on either BSV or BCH. Who knows what new rules will be applied on a whim.

6

son_of_meat Yesterday

Can someone ELI5 that?

3

UpstairsAdagio Redditor for less than 90 days 9 hs ago

They expecting nchain to blacklist users withdrawals and deposits. Csw threatened this as he doesnt want you dumping your coins. Kraken are basically letting the community decide (and take all the risk) what happens. Without explicitly saying they think this is s scam they are doing everything possible to fuck over Csw. Its in their interests. They want to help the space legitimise and nutcases like csw who threaten to manipulate the market are always gonna be an easy reason for it to be considered a market area for scammers not people who genuinely wanna change world finance. They give csw the option of being kept there if they show they are legit

11

benjamindees Yesterday

That really needs some clarification. "Socialized" in proportion to BSV holdings only? Or not proportional at all? Or in proportion to total account balance? Or are they going to try to sue you for holding BSV on their exchange? This isn't like some exchange that has been robbed and is making up the rules after the fact. If you expect losses and have the foresight to add these kinds of warnings, make them explicit.

6

lowstrife Yesterday

I'm sure somewhere in their terms of service they say they are under no obligation to support any hard fork where a new token is created. I'd be surprised if it wasn't there. I also think it is clear that they said it would be socialized FROM BSV holders. Given that: they deem socialized losses are necessary to support the coin at the current time. If you don't like that, you should have either a) withdrawn from an exchange with a unclear policy before the fork, or b) withdraw your funds onto an unstable network when they support transfers. Being unhappy with their response, sadly, falls upon the user having funds there that are impacted. This is not similar to the bitfinex hack. The only real similarity is "socialized", beyond that just about everything else is different. I personally don't see anything egregious about this. It's a pretty clusterfuck'y situation.

3

melllllll Yesterday

Just my take, but I thought it was clearly from BSV holdings only. So if 1000 of Kraken's BSV on deposit were blacklisted by nChain, they would deduct them proportionally from the BSV holdings on the exchange.

17

emfyo 7 hs ago

So I have no money on Kraken today.. if I buy BSV they are promising to scam me and "deduct" whatever proportionally to "subsidize" other traders? I can't imagine anyone else ever coming up with the same idea except for governments and central banks

1

playfulexistence 5 hs ago

If you buy or hold BSV on an exchange then **nChain are threatening to steal it**. Kraken is just telling you that you are taking a risk by buying or holding this coin on their exchange and that it's not their fault if you leave your BSV there and it is stolen by nChain. If any BSV is stolen, they will deduct the stolen BSV proportionally from the balance of all the BSV holders on their site. Other users will be unaffected. If you buy BSV there and don't like these terms then you had better withdraw your BSV as soon as possible. Or you could use a different exchange, but I imagine most exchanges will have the same conditions whether they explicitly state them or not.

7

jespow Jesse Powell - CEO, Kraken Exchange Yesterday

correct.

19

phillipsjk Yesterday

I have to check, but I may be holding BSV there: despite not trading in months. IIRC, I had an open order to buy "cheap" BTC.

3

Kain_niaK Yesterday

Kraken is one of the most legit exchanges there is. They really do their best in Europe to follow all the regulation.

65

moggins 6 hs ago

Since they updated their trading engine they've been pretty faultless! Even their customer support had been very quick to respond to my issues!

2

lethos3 8 hs ago

one of the oldest too.

1

moYouKnow Yesterday

I've had the opposite experience with Kraken. Their site is so crappy I couldn't even successfully login for long periods.

1

UpstairsAdagio Redditor for less than 90 days 9 hs ago

I absolutely love them. Just place the buy order from a laptop and your ok. I will tolerate the slowness, they are playing a long game and you know your funds are safe. To me them and coinbase are the only two exchanges I would actually trust

4

Kain_niaK Yesterday

They are popular so yeah they can't always handle the traffic. Like Bitine'xed always said a smooth working exchange that cheats is worse than having a crappy working honest one.

7

horsebadlydrawn Redditor for less than 60 days Yesterday

And a crappy working exchange that cheats is the worst - ie. Bitmex.

5

knight222 Yesterday

> They really do their best in Europe to follow all the regulation. CSW must be pleased.

4

barcode_guy Yesterday

I was shocked they actually called out nChain by name in their warning. They are clearly expecting nChain to pull something.

49

_-________________-_ 11 hs ago

> They are clearly expecting nChain to pull something. Kraken thinks that nChain is yanking their... chain... YEEEEAAHHHH!!!! 😎

2

horsebadlydrawn Redditor for less than 60 days Yesterday

>clearly expecting nChain to pull something. You mean expecting nChain to pull **something else**

3

Kain_niaK Yesterday

nChain are criminals, they will try to steal from other criminal exchanges that are greedy and want to profit from BSV trading. Scam the scammers. edit: To be fair, other than lying they have not done anything illegal yet. But if they do reorg attack against exchanges like how CSW said they would ... well that's absolutely criminal.

18

poorbrokebastard 6 hs ago

>other than lying they have not done anything illegal yet. I really didn't realize "lying" was illegal...

1

impossible_try Yesterday

> like how CSW said they would That is so far the only guarantee that *nothing will happen* ! If someone else besides Craig would have threatened, I would be worried. But Craig never ever delivers.

11

livingRealLife Yesterday

They will do it anyway. Protect yourself.

3

coin-master Yesterday

Nchain people have announced that a gazillion times.

19

barcode_guy Yesterday

Absolutely. I'm just pleasantly surprised the exchange didn't try to sugar coat it.

25

horsebadlydrawn Redditor for less than 60 days Yesterday

>surprised the exchange didn't try to sugar coat it. Or, worse still, deliberately mislead their customers by creating new ticker symbols for BCH and SV, implying that ABC and SV are equally valid. \*cough\* Binance Poloniex Bitfinex \*cough\*. On the flip side, those exchanges will be the best places to dump BSVision tokens.

3

mtrycz 9 hs ago

> implying that ABC and SV are equally valid they made it clear from the start that > WARNING: Bitcoin SV does NOT meet Kraken’s usual listing requirements. It should be seen as an extremely high risk investment. There are many red flags that traders should be aware of:

4

LexGrom Yesterday

It's war after all. Bitcoin will go on, but exchanges' reputations, fees and client bases are also on the line

7

playfulexistence Yesterday

And they are right to expect that because nChain have explicitly stated that they will attack any exchange that lists BSV tokens.

51

Zyntho 6 hs ago

Link?

2

playfulexistence 6 hs ago

I don't remember the specific link but CSW said lots of times that they will bankrupt exchanges for various reasons. Here's an example where he threatens to bankrupt exchanges if they use the BCH ticker to list the original BCH (this would apply to Kraken): https://twitter.com/ProfFaustus/status/1036169375420739584

6

atericparker Redditor for less than 60 days Yesterday

Don't you mean BCH / BCHABC tokens? Why would they attack exchanges for listing their own tokens?

1

barcode_guy Yesterday

Very true. I'm just glad they had the balls to not sugar coat it.

35

7 2

Fall_up_and_get_down 1 h ago

So, at what point are the ETH->USD exits going to choke up with people trying to avoid jail?

1

disconnect04 Yesterday

it’s only the crypto world that act like querulous nerds and think they can argue the definition of the word 'is'.

nice

4

Ranguvar Yesterday

Penalties seem extremely reasonable, which other news has been surprised by as well.

File a Form 10 to register the tokens under Section 12(g)of the Securities Exchange Act, 1934
Send every buyer a claim form to have their money refunded under Section 12(a)
Pay a $250,000 penalty
Don’t do it again

10

dustblunt Yesterday

They're all going to jail. All the sports cars and luxury clothes won't be worth a third when they try and sell them second hand to return "investors" money.

5

Ranguvar Yesterday

...?

2

dustblunt Yesterday

They have to pay back the money. If they spent it, they are fucked

3

Fall_up_and_get_down 34 mins ago

IMO, whether or not the TOKEN->USD gateway holds up is going to tell the tale: They only need enough money to pay back the ICO direct purchasers: Since most of these have an insane level of premine, they MIGHT be able to hock enough of their personal coin stash to pay back the ICO claimants that are willing to step forward and make a claim... Which excludes just about everybody who was attempting to use an ICO to launder ill gotten gains.

1

Ranguvar Yesterday

Oh, true, true.

2

dgerard Yesterday

I expect future ICO promoters will be very lucky to get such a deal. Imagine the halcyon days of Munchee, when all they had to do was shut down and give the ETH back.

5

TeslaApe Yesterday

The SEC position, that a common enterprise with profits to come solely from the efforts of others, is a security, seems reasonable.

That cryptocurrencies are a common enterprise with profits to come solely from the efforts of others is also reasonable.

Therefore a bit of enforcement is reasonable.

10

HopeFox Yesterday

Defunding secured!

5

PatrickBitmain Yesterday

And regulations are being written to prevent foreign ICOs trying to attract American investors. This should help secure a lot of law enforcement jobs. Thanks anti-statists or whatever you call yourselves.

10

thehoesmaketheman Yesterday

Just want to say, anyone in the United States can make 30 40 60 90 100k doing heating and cooling. There's actual work involved which I know will freak out 100% of creepers but hey. Thought I would throw it out there. And no chart can change that shit. People always need heating and cooling. Always. It will be the last thing to go. No chart watching. No downturn. No evil enemy. Just a furnace and an air conditioner and a boiler and a hot water tank.

13

SnapshillBot Yesterday

We verified that against the blockchain.

Snapshots:

This Post - archive.org, megalodon.jp, archive.is

^(I am a bot.) ^([Info](/r/SnapshillBot) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=\/r\/SnapshillBot))

3

starmansouper Yesterday

Pulled over in my Tesla to verify that.

4

2

4 2

veoxxoev 3 hs ago

Once again I see

An Augur trader bought ~40k USD worth of shares betting on the Republicans.

yet the link present does not point to proof of the claim.

An Augur trader bought ~40k USD worth of shares betting on the Republicans.

would be correct; yet still unsubstantiated.

It is strange for me to see you repeat this claim, given that just a day earlier you've questioned it yourself.

Although, indeed, there seems to be an account that went short on the "Democrats" outcome - to which I gave another plausible explanation in that thread of yours, - the particular "~40k USD" claim seems to just be parroted.

I've tried to find the source of it, and it seems to be a misreading of two particular transactions.

1

edmundedgar 1 day ago

I think this market is pretty clear but yeah, it would be good to test out the forking. One unfortunate thing about the way Augur was rolled out is that you don't actually get to test the forking mechanism until there's a lot of money in the system. It would have been better to start with a lower threshold for forking and raise it after you'd seen it happen a couple of times.

1

shitcoinking 1 day ago

Interesting read, but i disagree that a "pragmatic" approach would win out. In the absence of objective details for resolution, relying on subjective, individual assumptions of what the market creator intended, and worse, what other resolvers assume, will lead to a market that is uncertain and arbitrary.

For a prediction market to function, there needs to be a schelling point, an objective one based on the resolution details. If I purchased an option on the price of ETH, I want it to settle according to the details, not based on different and conflicting assumptions of resolvers.

2

AuthorityFigure 1 day ago

Even if you had the strictest definitions and the most objective details, there could still be uncertainty and confusion. This is an inevitable outcome of any formal system, let alone human language. This was pretty handily shown to be the case by Gödel’s Incompleteness theorem. In *Gödel, Escher, Bach*, Hofstadter expounds on this at length. The marking of paradoxical markets as “invalid’ also gives evidence to this. The details of paradoxical markets are certainly objective and consistent, but we recognize that they are ultimately decidable as undecidable. A paradox in itself and a very much subjective one.  The idea of the ‘wisdom of the crowd’ that Augur is based off of doesn’t just apply to the idea that bettors on markets will accurately predict outcomes, but also that Rep holders will accurately determine the subjective ‘rules’ and ‘intent’ implicit in any market. If this is not the case then Augur has no utility.  Let me ask you this. Would you support a lawsuit against PredictIt to be brought by the losing side of the market with the same title as the one on Augur? I don’t believe that any neutral observer would. For such a lawsuit to succeed, a lawyer could argue that it needs to be shown that a ‘[reasonable person](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person)’ would not understand the meaning of that market to mean that it applied to the new House make-up. I think that is a big ask.  Whether it was intended or not, Rep holders are ‘the court’ in this game and they are the ultimate arbiters of truth in it.  I believe that this market will be disputed (if only due to the low cost of doing so) and we will be in the same situation as a hypothetical PredictIt lawsuit. If Rep holders cannot determine the same intent that the bettors of this market did then Augur is useless.

6

shitcoinking Yesterday

> Even if you had the strictest definitions and the most objective details, there could still be uncertainty and confusion. No one is saying 100% certainty is possible, but we should strive for it. The point is to remove as much uncertainty as possible. >Rep holders will accurately determine the subjective ‘rules’ and ‘intent’ implicit in any market. If this is not the case then Augur has no utility. How can rep holders determine intent if the bettors can't? Intent is inherently subjective unless you have the market creator explicitly state his or her intent. In which case we have an objective standard anyway. Let's say the market maker for this congressional house market signed a message today and said he intended for control on nov 11, not control for the 116th congress. What would be the resolution? Should we allow extrinsic evidence? Or should the resolution be according to the details of the market contract? It should be the latter, the objective details. >Reasonable person standard I don't think this would be a big ask at all. A reasonable person could believe that the market be interpreted according to the plain meaning of the contract. If the market maker intended to say one thing, it should have been explicit in the details (ex. the resolution should be the 116th congress). >If Rep holders cannot determine the same intent that the bettors of this market did then Augur is useless. Augur is useless if bettors don't know how rep holders will interpret the market question. If Augur becomes a system where resolvers substitute their subjective interpretation for the intent of the market creator, then Augur will be full of markets where the resolution is unclear. Anyone could easily make markets that are full of possible assumptions and fork Augur to death. The only way forward is for resolvers to resolve according to objective details. If not, perhaps Augur was an interesting experiment in decentralized resolution but ended up cluttered with too much noise to operate.

2

AuthorityFigure Yesterday

>No one is saying 100% certainty is possible, but we should strive for it. The point is to remove as much uncertainty as possible. I agree that striving for 100% certainty is an admirable goal as long as it is recognized that it is an impossible one. >How can rep holders determine intent if the bettors can't? That is a question that would need to be determined for each market. In the case of the 2018 Augur House market, the intent of the market was determined by the bettors themselves when they bet on the market. Bettors, Rep holders, and observers all have the same information. Bettors chose the meaning that made the most sense to them and we have evidence of it. The market itself. Right now the market stands at 95% certainty for Democrat long. If bettors determined a different intent then why aren’t these numbers different? If they determined that Republican long was the correct intent then this market would be at 95% Republican. If they determined that this market was not valid, then why are all of the options not at 33%. Whatever your answer, it will be an entirely subjective one. Also, if you don’t believe that the market determined this (through the wisdom of the crowd) then what are we even doing here? >Intent is inherently subjective unless you have the market creator explicitly state his or her intent. In which case we have an objective standard anyway. Let's say the market maker for this congressional house market signed a message today and said he intended for control on nov 11, not control for the 116th congress. What would be the resolution? Should we allow extrinsic evidence? Or should the resolution be according to the details of the market contract? It should be the latter, the objective details. Yes, intent is subjective. That is my point. The very idea that there can be an ‘objective standard’ is mathematically unsolvable. The details of a market contract will always be subjective. Even in your example there is uncertainty. Nov 11th of what year? What calendar? What does control mean? Does this mean something different if translated? Are those numbers decimal or hexadecimal? By its very nature the Augur network allows extrinsic evidence. Namely, the biases and experience of the Rep holders. >I don't think this would be a big ask at all. A reasonable person could believe that the market be interpreted according to the plain meaning of the contract. If the market maker intended to say one thing, it should have been explicit in the details (ex. the resolution should be the 116th congress). Your understanding of the ‘plain meaning’ of the contract is likely different from mine. No matter how explicit the resolution details in the contract, there could still be uncertainty to the resolution. A subjectivity. Which congress? Numbers? Language? >Augur is useless if bettors don't know how rep holders will interpret the market question. Yes, this is true as well as the inverse. Luckily Rep holders can see what the market is at currently to determine how the market question was determined. Unless you don’t believe that the wisdom of the crowd idea works. In which case, again, why are we here? >If Augur becomes a system where resolvers substitute their subjective interpretation for the intent of the market creator, then Augur will be full of markets where the resolution is unclear. Anyone could easily make markets that are full of possible assumptions and fork Augur to death. It is not possible to leave out some subjective interpretation of the market creators intent. Objective details are of a degree and not binary. Such is the nature of our current understanding of reality. From the Augur network perspective, market resolution will never be unclear. Instead, if there is enough uncertainty then a new reality will be created. A new universe. >The only way forward is for resolvers to resolve according to objective details. This is not possible according to our current understanding of how the universe works. >If not, perhaps Augur was an interesting experiment in decentralized resolution but ended up cluttered with too much noise to operate. Perhaps. I think there will continue to be work to minimize the uncertainty of the system, but it will never be able to removed entirely. I feel alright using such a system and I believe that many others will too. We shall see.

1

diyhockey Yesterday

To be completely frank, the sameness of questions does not mean the sameness of resolution. PredictIt has rules for the market, whereas Augur is not (not always). One example could be the market "Will Ronaldo score a goal?". In case if Ronaldo will not play in that game, bookie will refund money to both sides of the bet. Whereas Augur will resolve this market "NO"

1

AuthorityFigure Yesterday

Nowhere in my post do I make any claim otherwise. The reference to PredictIt is in regards to a hypothetical lawsuit brought by the losers of the 2018 PredictIt House market and the standard by which a lawyer might argue the case. Even in your example, such a hypothetical lawsuit could still occur. “Will Ronaldo score a goal?” That depends. Which Ronaldo are we talking about? What if the ball bounces off of a player from the opposite team? Does that count? What if the website, where the resolution source of the market resides, was hacked to say that Ronaldo scored a goal when he didn’t? What if an official paid off? In all of these examples, a lawyer would be expected to follow the “reasonable person” standard in regards to the rules and intent of the market and indeed the outcome. What might a ‘reasonable person’ conclude in the face of the uncertainty inherent in every market? Your post gives an example of the problem of uncertainty. When you wrote, “to be completely frank”, do you mean that your name is Frank? Is this an attempt to profess your honesty? A meta analysis of your post could also determine that this comment is meant as a subtle rebuke. Who determines what is true? You? Because you wrote it? Even your declared intent could bring about uncertainty due to your own incentives and biases. The reader would need to use their own experience and biases to determine what was likely the truth. The point of my previous post is to show that even with the utmost diligence to objectivity by a market creator there could still be uncertainty and, in the absence of certainty, Rep holders should use a method of determining intent of at least the same level as the U.S. justice system. A debatably low bar.

3

monkey_in_the_bushes 1 day ago

Good read. I hope it forks so the purists can go off into their own universe. Can't imagine future trading on the platform if it resolves Reps or Invalid.

5

umib0zu 1 day ago

Why not Invalid? A few days ago I said it should resolve Dems, but after thinking about it for a while, I truly believe the end date was set far too early. It should have been set to something like January 1. It should be dems, but it's still uncertain since you can make a good argument that the outcome is not fully resolved.

2

monkey_in_the_bushes 1 day ago

Hmm, it's pretty clear at this point: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/06/us/elections/results-house-elections.html. Every major news outlet is reporting that Democrats have regained control over the house. Even if the 6 current undecided elections went for Republicans, on top of that 14 already decided elections would have to be reverted to Republicans for them to have control (practically speaking impossible, and no reasonable person would make plans or invest based on this happening). I really like the author's comparison to the DAO hack and fork. While I respect the ideals that purists strive for, the world is messy and these tools are ultimately intended for practical use. Ultimately, just like ETC and ETH, the market will decide which universe is more valuable. My money (and REP tokens) are on the one that accurately predicted which party would control the House after the election.

5

23 2

crusoe 4 days ago

This just shows miners are manipulating the price because actual trade volume is way low. So they have to paint the tape to keep prices where it's profitable.

2

NonnoBomba 4 days ago

This is good for ~~bitcoin~~ global warming.

5

galaspark 4 days ago

Weak hands. 1 Comedy godl = 1 Comedy godl. You cannot lose

7

SnapshillBot 4 days ago

Seperation of money and state -> states become obsolete -> world peace.

Snapshots:

This Post - archive.org, megalodon.jp, archive.is

^(I am a bot.) ^([Info](/r/SnapshillBot) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=\/r\/SnapshillBot))

2

N8twon 7 months old | Karma CC: 341 BTC: 1147 2 months ago

This is what we want, this will cause the value of bitcoin to go up. We want as many miners to come online between now and the 2020 halving.

1

hudsoncider 2 months ago

Not if you are mining.....

1

N8twon 7 months old | Karma CC: 341 BTC: 1147 2 months ago

North Korea, just like the traveler said.

1

Loemel Crypto Expert | CC: 17 QC 2 months ago

Is this good for Bitcoin? (serious question) In my understanding this means more security, but also more energy usage and higher difficulty wich, again in my understanding, means lower profits for miners?

1

agenttank 1 - 2 years account age. 200 - 1000 comment karma. 2 months ago

lower profits, yes. thats why they keep installing more and more ASICs. this means higher difficulty, then they buy more asics. it is a bad thing that bitcoin is relying on humans! they mine for profit and may be greedy. not really more secure, as the amount of mining farm operators stay the same

2

jetrucci 2 months ago

it means more people are interested in it.

1

kevinmeland 1 - 2 year account age. 35 - 100 comment karma. 2 months ago

CryptoTech.no

0

lamb0x 2 months ago

Lol no.

1

kevinmeland 1 - 2 year account age. 35 - 100 comment karma. 2 months ago

Never gonna happend, hahaha

1

RedGolpe 2 months ago

Amazing, a new hashrate ATH. That only happens every other day.

5

saalda Positive | Karma CC: 869 ETH: 1186 2 months ago

Why the sarcasm? Greater hashrate = greater cost to generate new bitcoin which in turn increases the likelihood of the price of bitcoin increasing.

2

RedGolpe 2 months ago

Except hashrate tripled in the past 9 months, and price halved. Also, that was not sarcasm. Hashrate actually makes a new ATH every couple of days.

1

Paedophobe Karma CC: 259 BTC: 1381 2 months ago

No, still based on supply and demand. If I dig a hole, we both agree that I used energy to do it but you wouldn't pay me for it. Now I tell you I dug a deeper hole, would you buy it for more?

1

triplewitching2 Crypto God | CC: 36 QC | BTC: 16 QC 2 months ago

How does higher mining cost make the price increase ? Serious question, as I've heard this argument before, and I can't figure it out. Alberta tar sands cost more to refine then the usual Saudi oil, does operating the tar sands extraction program mean that gas is about to go up in price, or just someone gambling ? The funny thing about hashrate is, you don't need it to process transactions, it just indicates how much effort miners are using, its purely a factor of more miners running, and I don't see how it indicates anything else.

3

DrRobertHoffman 1 - 2 years account age. 200 - 1000 comment karma. 2 months ago

>Alberta tar sands cost more to refine then the usual Saudi oil, does operating the tar sands extraction program mean that gas is about to go up in price, or just someone gambling ? This is a little off, its more like all oil is as difficult to extract as Alberta tar sands, so with higher costs to produce you find higher costs to buy or sometimes just lower profits taken by producers. >it just indicates how much effort miners are using, its purely a factor of more miners running, and I don't see how it indicates anything else. More miners running means less likelihood of finding a block, especially as difficulty is based on previous hashrate.

3

triplewitching2 Crypto God | CC: 36 QC | BTC: 16 QC 2 months ago

I suppose its a bad analogy, because oil is used up, and bitcoin is just traded most of the time. Since most of the supply is already in circulation, there isn't a huge number of new coins to be mined, so the price influence of new coins is minimal.

1

laforet 19774 karma | Karma CC: 120 BTC: 528 2 months ago

He's probably counting on the "institutions" to pump the price so miners will remain afloat on the spot market.

1

triplewitching2 Crypto God | CC: 36 QC | BTC: 16 QC 2 months ago

I'm not sure how much logic there is in mining. Clearly the big guys must make costs, but everyone else may just be locked in and keeping the hardware running just out of hope at this point.

1

laforet 19774 karma | Karma CC: 120 BTC: 528 2 months ago

Your price argument notwithstanding, there is no way to verify whether the ATH was real. You see, there isn't actually a function built into the bitcoin protocol to measure the hash rate, and any value you see are calculated based on the latest block interval and difficulty. This is why the curve is always fluctuating as small variations of block interval sways the calculations one way or the other. Occasionally there will be a lucky pool that manages to solve a block several standard deviations ahead of the average - this alone would make the average hash rate seem much faster without any actual change to the network. Once the next difficulty retarget happens in ~10 days we will have a solid idea whether the increase was real or fluke.

12

MoneroCrusher Karma CC: 108 XMR: 678 XRM: 322 BTC: -66 2 months ago

What about neat anti-ASIC fork to bring those profits back to the people? I remember when I mined BTC with my laptop a couple years ago..those were the days :-)

0

Paedophobe Karma CC: 259 BTC: 1381 2 months ago

Because if it was popular it all have an asic

1

triplewitching2 Crypto God | CC: 36 QC | BTC: 16 QC 2 months ago

I think you are looking for r/dogecoin You can mine all of that you want with your raspberry pi ;)

0

pishfish001 2 months ago

No you cant. Mining Dogecoin is not profitable and no sane miner would mine Dogecoin ig he/she could mine Litecoin and still receive dogecoin.

0

triplewitching2 Crypto God | CC: 36 QC | BTC: 16 QC 2 months ago

im not a miner, so I don't know the ins and outs, only that it was historically easier to mine, but times change.

0

saalda Positive | Karma CC: 869 ETH: 1186 2 months ago

You must be bathing in 💴 💰

1

MoneroCrusher Karma CC: 108 XMR: 678 XRM: 322 BTC: -66 2 months ago

Nope lol Just made a lot of money in comparison what my laptop cost, but not tens of thousands or million I was like...what i only made this many cents tonight? Meh! And quit doing it lol

1

Ricknad0 2 months ago

What does this mean?

8

vseddie Crypto Nerd 2 months ago

I'm not saying it was aliens..

0

andrazte Crypto God | NEO: 36 QC | 6 months old 2 months ago

Oh yeah! More green gas generating shit!

0

Watada 2 months ago

Spikes in hashrate don't indicate anything other than a burst of luck. We are at an ATH of hashrates but it's not yet 62 EH/s.

0

vinnyfraser Crypto Nerd 2 months ago

Burst of luck? You sir, don't know what you're talking about.

5

Watada 2 months ago

If it weren't a burst of luck why was the hash rate significantly lower the day before and after?

0

LexGrom Crypto God | BTC: 161 QC 2 months ago

Warehouses are being turned on and off, some machines are switching between chains, some are under maintenance, some are working in cycles. Plus constant testing of everything by lots of people with different scales. Plus diff adj planning for BTC. Bitcoin never sleeps and never will be

1

Watada 2 months ago

Turning off a warehouse sounds stupid, is this conjecture or do you have some proof that large asic farms are turned off occasionally? Switching between chains would make sense if it was close to reasonable. The four next biggest sha256 cryptocurrencies each have total hashrates less than the day before or after hashrate dips in Bitcoin. Suggesting it's a difficulty change shows your ignorance as we are in the hallway between diff changes. 10% of the network couldn't be installed in one day and why would they promptly turn it off. The local grid would probably crash. Does anyone have a reasonable explanation on how this isn't a burst of luck? /u/vinnyfraser maybe?

1

LexGrom Crypto God | BTC: 161 QC 2 months ago

> or do you have some proof that large asic farms are turned off occasionally? No, I'm just counting possible reasons. I've no desire to spend time weighting them

1

Watada 2 months ago

> I've no desire to spend time weighting them But you have time to weigh mine?

0

newgeezas 2 months ago

We should start using exahashes, no need for all these zeroes same way we don't show the other 12 in tera.

37

QuantumProofGhost 7 months old | Karma CC: 66 2 months ago

Atleast most people know what a Tera is since it's right after Giga for gigabyte, which everyone has phones with so many gigabytes of storage and some have PC's or laptops that reach the terabyte mark. I can bet the huge majority of people never heard of an Exa. Until we reach 1 billion TH I think this is better than going by EH/s

2

SpontaneousDream long-term holder 2 months ago

Pretty amazing and just goes to show how strong the network is. This is literally the most secure computer network on the planet.

29

dontlikecomputers Crypto God | NANO: 69 QC | CC: 28 QC 2 months ago

A few hundred Chinese guys with guns could get consensus, so it is secure while it is allowed to be. Nano is stronger, to attack consensus physically you would need to find the coin holders, you could get the exchange holders with guns but that would not be enough now that it is quite decentralised in distribution. You can attack nodes but they can appear anywhere on the planet, lastly you could spam it, but that wouldn't steal any money or consensus, just be a temporary block while POW is increased.

0

EntropyTrophy Crypto Nerd | CC: 16 QC 2 months ago

> A few hundred Chinese guys with guns could get consensus Do you have a source to back your claim?

3

SpontaneousDream long-term holder 2 months ago

Lol get back to me when Nano has been around for nearly a decade, then we can talk. Bitcoin has been tried and tested for almost 10 years, and here we are, stronger than ever. Nano has hardly been around for a year.

5

MakeMeHappyAgain 2 - 3 years account age. 300 - 1000 comment karma. 2 months ago

Nano has been around for 3 years.

1

SpontaneousDream long-term holder 2 months ago

Not really, it only started trading a year ago and was a one man project since 2014. It’s only been tested by the open market for a year, which is what matters.

0

dontlikecomputers Crypto God | NANO: 69 QC | CC: 28 QC 2 months ago

Will do. The BTC code from 9 years ago is very different to what exists now so while the age argument is a good one, it is a bit disingenuous, and it shouldn't paper over real threats.

0

SpontaneousDream long-term holder 2 months ago

Just because the code is different doesn't make the argument weaker. Fact of the matter is that Bitcoin has encountered *numerous* challenges over the years, and has not only overcome all of them (there are still some today, don't get me wrong), but has actually come out *stronger* in the process. The age argument is a very good argument and metric for determining which coins have actual value. Go back a few years on coinmarketcap and see for yourself. The vast majority of those coins are all either dead or irrelevant. I'm not bashing Nano's tech, but I'm very skeptical of any coin that claims it's the next greatest thing. I've seen that argument over and over again, only for the coin to eventually wither away. If Nano can make it to ~5 years and still be relevant, then I'll give it more consideration. As for now though, it's just as risky as any other alt coin out there.

2

dontlikecomputers Crypto God | NANO: 69 QC | CC: 28 QC 2 months ago

Hypothetically, if BTC had the hashrate of BCH, and BCH had the hashrate of BTC, would you rate BTC poorly? Answer - yes you would, rightly. So in essence, correct me if I'm wrong, you base BTC's strength in large part on something that is not symbiotic, SHA256 hashing. This is another reason BTC has a weakness, the consensus mechanism is only linked to BTC by choice, and people are idiots, SHA256 miners only care about 2 things, paying their power bill, and making money with the remainder, not necessarily BTC, most will auto switch to the most profitable coin, even if it's and absolute shitcoin, or fedcoin, or whatever... BTC price makes it the safest, for now. Nano has the new and fairly unique property that the consensus is symbiotic to the coin, it makes it stronger than mineable coins imo. See you in 10 years... :)

0

SpontaneousDream long-term holder 2 months ago

Lol not even going to bother with this one. You clearly don’t understand how mining works. I can promise you that Bitcoin has a *much* higher chance of being around in 10 years than Nano. Hold Nano all you want, but you’re taking a big risk.

2

captain-bitcoin Crypto God | CC: 132 QC 2 months ago

Anybody worried about the environmental impact of all the mining?

11

playofthegods 2 months ago

Solar Power - a potential contributor to the solution

1

LexGrom Crypto God | BTC: 161 QC 2 months ago

I used to. But side-effects of not having an immutable ledger are more costly than side-effects of mining. I don't see PoS as PoW replacement Plus u can progressively decrease side-effects of mining with geopowers, nuclear, solar and eventually termonuclear power. Burning coal and oil only gives u so much

2

crisp_spruce Crypto God 2 months ago

Why do you rule out PoS as being a viable alternate to PoW?

2

LexGrom Crypto God | BTC: 161 QC 2 months ago

PoS ledgers are nowhere close in immutability. To rewrite Bitcoin's ledger and to erase my BTC (and BCH, and ...) from the record is simply impossible with current technology, it's more likely that some country will build a dome on Mars in a year than a big event of focused ledger rewritting by any superpower or a corporation that erases my money happens in that time By erased money I mean that rewritten version of the ledger on the market - big exchanges, block explorers etc - rejects my version of history U've to burn energy Smart social engineering attack on a PoS ledger that includes market manipulation and bogus software production and shilling can destroy everyhing. Imagine Segwit2x turmoil or current debacle in BCH, but without Nakamoto consensus guarding people's sanity

1

crisp_spruce Crypto God 2 months ago

I appreciate your comment, but I dont see anything fundamental about PoS that makes it a worse solution than PoW. Isn't it true that bitmain already controls bitcoin in terms of hashpower? Doesn't that make bitcoin vulnerable to rewritten history?

2

LexGrom Crypto God | BTC: 161 QC 2 months ago

> but I dont see anything fundamental about PoS that makes it a worse solution than PoW Lack of immutability does. It doesn't matter if u don't care about who owns what over time. Short-term speculators don't care. Gamblers don't care. Users that are unaware of what happens in the background don't care (just like with the banking system) > Isn't it true that bitmain already controls bitcoin in terms of hashpower? No, there're other parties involved. I also doubt that every machine in Bitmain's mining pools physically belongs to Bitmain. Even if Bitmain decides to censor a transaction and rewrite history, it's a battle that they have to begin and win, otherwise they'll waste a lot. Andreas did a great video on 51% attack, and one of the major factors: "u've to sustain it". If u lose or even just become suspicious in the court of public opinion someone will release Bitcoin software with an algo with which u doesn't have 51%+ anymore and u'll lose economically **a lot**, cos mining machines are only truly useless if there's proven clear case of malice and market no longer trust this algo at all. Part of crypto development moved by shire distrust in Bitcoin mining, but broad market values Bitcoin a lot, which part of what makes this distrust erroneous and irrelevant in my judgment > Doesn't that make bitcoin vulnerable to rewritten history? No, it's one thing to rewrite yesterday's txs, and another thing to rewrite last week's txs. While u're busy rewriting, everyone moves forward. Older the tx in question, more and more hashrate u've to have to just keep up at the end of rewriting - 60%, 70%, 80% etc. And u've to spend a lot of time even if u've 100% of the hashrate. https://fork.lol, meanwhile a chain's users in the absence of blocks will switch to something else rendering your efforts worthless

1

Paedophobe Karma CC: 259 BTC: 1381 2 months ago

No. It helps solve the issue of central bankers printing money out of thin air. Pos / dpos created all the coins up front. Making money out of thin air. With Bitcoin you must spend money to mint a Bitcoin. http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/

5

crisp_spruce Crypto God 2 months ago

Why in your opinion is spending money to mint a coin essential? Even with PoS, its not like anyone can arbitrarily print money, its still mathematically emitted.

1

Paedophobe Karma CC: 259 BTC: 1381 2 months ago

Because it's like the old central bank system. No consequences or making money out of thin air. Then the ones that started have given themselves nano so now when they vote on a chain it most likely follows what they say. Sort of like the elite bankers are the only one that has access to the ledger.

1

ric2b 12252 karma | CC: 181 karma BTC: 462 karma 2 months ago

IIRC the entire network uses enough energy in a year to power a big US city for a few hours, so it's a rounding error when talking about a global scale.

4

BitsAndBobs304 New to Crypto 2 months ago

as long as people drive 4 ton 6000cc diesel suvs to go grocery shopping and have 3 kids, no.

12

Kain_niaK Crypto God | BTC: 255 QC 2 months ago

No because the waste product of bitcoin mining is heat between 95 and 105 degrees which is close to what electrical boilers keep their water temp at. So 20 years from now you will see electrical boilers that also mine Bitcoin. And miners will mine more and more with solar panels and other sources of renewable energy. Then their profits can be way higher.

2

robertjuh Crypto God | CC: 127 QC 2 months ago

doubt that they would pick solar panels if they want higher profits if they have the ability to have nuclear reactors in their basement (we talking future here)

1

robertjuh Crypto God | CC: 127 QC 2 months ago

i like how you think

2

eleventhace 6 - 7 years account age. 700 -1000 comment karma. 2 months ago

No it’s good for the environment as it’s progressing renewable energy technology.

3

SnowWhiteMemorial Positive | 19686 karma | CC: 482 karma NEO: 831 ka 2 months ago

Read “The Bitcoin Standard” by Saifedean Ammous; he covers this extensively and in depth.

2

lamb0x 2 months ago

He is a bitcoin maximalist and has to be taken with a pinch of salt. His statements are all good, but not blanket truth and proof of the theories that he explains in his book.

1

everythingisatoms Crypto Nerd | CC: 30 QC 2 months ago

A sound and secure financial system that takes monumental amount of energy to be attacked means the energy is useful, not wasted.

4

Ploxxx69 Crypto God | CC: 167 QC | MIOTA: 104 QC 2 months ago

Except this 'secure financial system' uses more energy than several countries combined while barely being used as a currency. It's not even possible to mass adopt and use it as a currency because the network wouldn't be able to handle it... Heavy PoW will never be mass adopted, it's not sustainable.

1

WordmanEric Redditor for 11 months. 2 months ago

The Bitcoin network uses a small fraction of the energy that is used by the internet as a whole. So, if you think Bitcoin's energy consumption is a problem, then you must think the internet's energy consumption is a much, much bigger problem. Which raises the question, what are you doing here on reddit? You're part of the problem.

2

KatamoriHUN 52663 karma | Karma CC: 65 2 months ago

But Proof of Stake is not democratic, and leads to the same issues we're facing in the established financial sector right now.

1

LexGrom Crypto God | BTC: 161 QC 2 months ago

> Except this 'secure financial system' uses more energy than several countries combined while barely being used as a currency Only if u value the chain which has artificial restrictions on capacity. Bitcoin is scalable

1

everythingisatoms Crypto Nerd | CC: 30 QC 2 months ago

It’s still an early tech that will have lots of upgrades to come. How many years did electricity, water and telecommunications systems have been around? Yet, there are many parts of the world still lacking of them. How easy can you shut them down? Just attack the power plant, the dam or the broadcast tower. Once Bitcoin is fully developed, it will be the strongest financial system in history. You don’t have to take my words for it. Just see the actions of paranoid governments and banks. They know Bitcoin will be unstoppable if it’s not stopped now.

5

frenz9 Karma CC: 21 BTC: 253 2 months ago

Not that there isn’t concerns but it’s not as black&white. There doesn’t *need* to be any environmental impact as we can use renewables (this is improving fast), in the places that’s profitable to mine is generally because their plants are producing excess energy (energy produced but not used is just wasted and still caused the environmental impact) and all this is nothing in comparison to what the energy consumption of the current financial market. PoS seems to be designed purely with environmental impact in mind but I’m not sure how I feel about it.

2

herpaderpadum Redditor for 8 months. 2 months ago

^ proof that propaganda works.

0

robertjuh Crypto God | CC: 127 QC 2 months ago

POP ( proof of propaganda) Algorythm: the more people believe in your theory, the higher the chance of concensus. New emerging ideas will be supressed by the majority concensus, thus keeping the network secure

2

[deleted] 2 months ago

No. You've been propagandised. Humanity progresses when it uses MORE energy, not LESS. The whiners who think that people will switch currency based on energy consumption are economically illiterate and will be the ones to lose the most money. Currency is monopolistic. Only one can win in the end, and it will be the best, soundest form of money, regardless of energy consumption, and certainly regardless of your political opinions.

0

jankimaker 2 months ago

You make no sense. > Only one can win in the end Which is why we have a unified global currency... Oh wait! The only one terribly illiterate is you,making less than knowledgeable comments about currency and consumption of energy. How much energy does USD consume? How much energy is needed to create more USD? > Humanity progresses when it uses MORE energy, not LESS. This has ZERO relevance to the question i.e. what is the best form of digital cash? Humanity can progress as it has all these years without using any form of energy consuming currency.

2

Watada 2 months ago

Banks use more power, cryptocurrencies will probably decrease total power used as they supplant banks. Edit: added the word "total".

0

CarInABoxx 2 months ago

Huge % of the population use banks. How many people use cryptocurrencies?

7

Watada 2 months ago

> as they supplant banks.

0

SpontaneousDream long-term holder 2 months ago

No, because it’s a non-issue. Are you worried about the environmental impact of the Internet? TVs? Smartphones? Of course not. Everything has an environmental impact. For the record, BTC mining =/= pollution and destroying the environment lol. There’s actually a lot of renewable energy used to like BTC.

0

triplewitching2 Crypto God | CC: 36 QC | BTC: 16 QC 2 months ago

Those other things (besides TV) are useful and needed. A better comparison is street racing (the safe version, like on a track) Is street racing the best use of the planet's limited petroleum ? Obviously not, but so what, the kiddies want to do it with their money, and its a free country. Its the same with mining, Does it make any sense to waste all this energy to basically process a tiny fraction of VISA's transactions ? No, but something about it excites the techies, so whatever. I'm sure they will eventually move on, when some other non-mined crypto eats the market.

1

gubertinus Crypto God | VEN: 179 QC | CC: 140 QC 2 months ago

It's not like we have an alternative for internet, tvs or smartphones. Which we do in the case of BTC.

8

CarInABoxx 2 months ago

Terrible false equivalence from OP. Internet is directly affecting a huge portion of the world population, right from jobs to business to money to healthcare, every industry was disrupted by the internet. Bitcoin? Can you say that more that 0.01% of the world's population are impacted in a meaningful way by bitcoin? I dont think so. Yet Bitcon consumes more power than several countries, from what I read... when there are efficient systems available already.

23

crypto_drew Redditor for 10 months | 256 cmnt karma | CC: 84 k 2 months ago

Bitcoin is on its way to helping many. But outside that energy use is on its way to not being a big issue. Solar is on a great path. Technology will save the environment. All this is temporary. We need to embrace modern tech as much as possible bc it will change our world for the better

2

xMrBlonde Crypto God | CC: 55 QC 2 months ago

Yeah, people freak out at the headline of "BTC Mining reaches 0.5% of electricity use" but don't even question the vast majority of greater electricity sinks we have in modern society

0

Sargos Crypto God | CC: 69 QC | ADA: 50 QC 2 months ago

Lots of people. That's why the industry is moving to Proof of Stake.

19

bl0ckchain3d 2 months ago

My money is on Cardano!

0

biggletits Crypto Nerd 2 months ago

Not one single person gives a fuck.

3

[deleted] 2 months ago

> That's why the industry is moving to Proof of Stake. Imagine if Bill Gates took all of his money out of the stockmarket and his bank accounts, and withdrew it as physical bank notes. Then imagine he put those bank notes in his basement. The next morning, Billy wakes up and checks on his stash. "Wow, there are even more notes here than yesterday!", he exclaims, upon seeing his money multiply. That is what PoS is. It's a ponzi scheme where the rich don't have to invest in productive assets to be rewarded, they literally just have to be rich.

0

guitarraus Karma CC: 118 2 months ago

So... exactly the same thing people with savings accounts see every month?

6

[deleted] 2 months ago

Oh god this is upvoted. People here really are this ignorant. The bank is investing that money for you buddy. I don't think you should be investing in anything if you don't understand that.

0

jankimaker 2 months ago

By this logic, PoW is also a ponzi scheme where the rich keep making money at the top and keep producing new coins to dump on the general market. In PoS, the stakeholders actually need to have a stake in the economy or the system. They need to hold a portion of the asset, i.e. skin in the game.

3

[deleted] 2 months ago

I don't think I could've laid it out more clearly. Investing your money in productive assets which need to produce value for you otherwise you lose money = skin in the game Hoarding your money in your basement != skin in the game, quite the opposite.

1

Winnal Redditor for 9 months. 2 months ago

The problem is PoS makes you hoard the currency to generate more as opposed PoW the users of the currency pay the miners when they spend the currency where the miners are separate from the general users whereas PoS the general users can stake their currency effectively making the whole userbase incentivized the hoard the currency which is counterintuitive to a currency. That’s a fundamental flaw in the PoS design as a currency most people don’t think about.

0

stochasticxyz 2 months ago

Devil's advocate here, PoW mining is essentially the same except rich people don't have to buy mining equipment or electricity.

10

Paedophobe Karma CC: 259 BTC: 1381 2 months ago

No, pow is very cut throat. They must waste money to make money. When others join the network the difficulty goes up and they must reinvest profits into more miners which adds difficulty. They must constantly put profits into more miners to be competitive. With POS you just leave money in that account.

1

[deleted] 2 months ago

No. In PoW, you have to invest in productive assets (mining equipment) and then use those miners to provide a service (securing the network) in return for your newly minted coins. The rich have to have skin in the game, they have to take a risk, they have to provide something, which is exactly the same as traditional markets. PoS is a fantasy where value is created out of nothing, and where there is no tether between the real world and the network.

0

whitecocofox Crypto God | OMG: 432 QC | CC: 18 QC 2 months ago

You clearly have no idea how POS work... Let's take OmiseGo POS model. Person A sends any asset supperted by OMG network to person B, person A pays tiny amount for transaction to POS validator. For validating transaction and securing network. So value is not coming from fantasy or thin air, it comes from small transaction fees to secure and validate network. Also since network will be compatible with any asset you can get your POS returns in any asset. POS is just more fair and logical to regular people. People will be able to stake even with 100$ without the need of mining equipment that costs thousands and destroys environment. POS will be more accessible= more decentralized.

1

[deleted] 2 months ago

> For validating transaction and securing network What is my cost as the validator? The opportunity cost of not being able to use my money is the only burden placed on me. There is no other cost, which is completely unlike PoW. > POS is just more fair and logical to regular people. Sure, if you like getting scammed by rich people. > destroys environment Oh god you're a clueless greenie. Sorry about that.

0

whitecocofox Crypto God | OMG: 432 QC | CC: 18 QC 2 months ago

Why are you so focused on cost? Why high cost is good for pow, don't you think it's bad that only rich people with big pile of cash can mine? Even if you wanted to mine now at home, you would need ALOT of money, especially if someone lives in a poor country. PoW is ancient and resource consuming. Also there is few more smaller costs with POS, you have to run a node, so you need atleast somekind of regular PC and very stable internet connection for 24/7. So there is cost of a regular pc/internet connection/stable internet connection/and abit higher electricity bill. Also scamming is done more now with "cloud mining", fake or damaged mining equipment and other things. So argument about scam is realy realy bad. Dumb people will always get scammed. Also destroying environment might not be so huge deal as people make it out to be... BUT iam all for better technology and saving resources. Why would we use PoW that costs alot more, is less decentralized becouse of the high costs? It makes no sense...

1

vinnyfraser Crypto Nerd 2 months ago

I think you're wrong there bud

7

memphis_dude 2 months ago

Is bitcoin though?

7

JohnCryptoRambo hiding under the water, breathing through a reed, 2 months ago

No it is not.

20

slimknees 2 months ago

What about Proof of Capacity?

0

Iron0ne Crypto God | CC: 56 QC | XMR: 36 QC 2 months ago

Miners moving off BCH with the Jihan, Craig, and Roger drama.

45

KatamoriHUN 52663 karma | Karma CC: 65 2 months ago

In time lol, all BTC forks are trash.

2

grumpyfrench rektosorus rex 2 months ago

> Jihan, Craig, and Roger drama. i'd like to know more

5

TheRealMotherOfOP Crypto God | BTC: 151 QC | CC: 69 QC 2 months ago

Alrighty here goes; Currently the plan for BCH is to fork in November, prompted by Bitcoin ABC and Nchain. Other clients (BU, XT, etc) take a more neutral approach. ABC was the main force behind the initial BCH fork, currently Jihan/Bitmain is mostly aligned to the roadmap ABC wants to bring, which is in short; new OP codes and canonical ordering. Also no blocksize upgrade. Currently a few large pools including bitmains will side with this fork. Nchain has a completely new client called Satoshi's Vision and it's mostly supported by coingeek which gained significant hashrate over the past weeks (35+%) in short; reinstating the original OP codes, not new ones and upgrading to 128mb blocks. You see these two both have huge power over the next fork, but here's the problem: They won't compromise. Both upgrades are incompatible which each other, so it will result in two chains or 1 dying and 1 winning. Or alternatively they still need to compromise. Other clients are trying to find compromise and stay neutral, but with both having significant hashpower it seems to be a battle between two. So more on the drama; CSW is largely hated by most and people don't trust him or bitcoin SV (since it isn't even launched) Yet there is a part of the community which wants their vision; no blocklimit at all and all original OP_codes available as in the white paper. ABC wants new things to upgrade BCH which move away from the white paper but might improve it, but they try to upgrade by force too, making older clients having a timebomb to upgrade or eventually to not work anymore. The drama is both parties calling each other names along the way, especially CSW saying fuck you to each and everyone not wanting his ideas. The issue with SV is that there isn't even code yet to show it can safely upgrade, no peer review yet. We will see soon supposedly. Roger isn't involved in the drama though, he is staying quite neutral but people want him to speak out against CSW's antics. Hashbattle aside, here are the options: 1. ABC; currently the most used and trusted, but forcing people to upgrade to different things as described in the white paper 2. SV; claiming the original protocol plan, but seen as untested/radical and backed by a fraud (CSW) 3. Compromise; current compromises include various strategies, I think BU is seen as the most fair compromise. There is a meeting between these large parties tomorrow. 4. No fork at all. Imo the best, wait for SV to launch and prove competence first, there is no need to rush into blocksize increases and which OP codes get added should have more debate first. Also ABC's canonical ordering has no proof it improves scalability.

6

Iron0ne Crypto God | CC: 56 QC | XMR: 36 QC 2 months ago

Thank you for the clear run down.

3

EntropyTrophy Crypto Nerd | CC: 16 QC 2 months ago

BCH is a garbage scam coin. The drama is a great thing for crypto as we all sit back and root for it to self-destruct.

7

suibhnesuibhne Crypto Nerd | CC: 36 QC 2 months ago

Crappy fork #528.. Man uses his ownership of the Bitcoin website to dishonestly flog his crappy fork to dull Investors.

8

Fly115 Crypto God | BTC: 293 QC | CC: 89 QC 2 months ago

The increase over the last few days is more than double the entire BCH hashrate. This is new hashpower. Thankfully for BCH holders the new hashpower wasnt used for an attack on bcash.

29

TechCynical Crypto God | CC: 70 QC | BTC: 17 QC 2 months ago

because you gain almost nothing by doing so. the flip side could also be said about btc holders. Thankfully jihan controlled pools didnt switch all bch miners to btc and successfully preform a 51% attack. But he wont or it wont happen on bch either. And probably not most other top 10 mining based coins because the risk isnt worth the reward at all. All it proved was theres more mining power at btc than bch and someone wanted to attack bch for a couple of hours. After so fees still low etc. You gain nothing doing so.

0

Fly115 Crypto God | BTC: 293 QC | CC: 89 QC 2 months ago

There used to be very little incentive to attack a chain, because you have invested in hardware to mine that coin. This changed ever since the BCH fork. A large mining farm can now.. 1. Short BCH on an exchange with high leverage (up to 100x on Bitmex) 2. 51% attack BCH 3. Double spend a few large transactions (profit) 4. Watch BCH value plummet (profit from short) 5. switch back all mining hardware to BTC (profit). 6. Hold your BTC while the price jumps as people flock to the chain that is more secure (profit). The reverse is not possible as you claimed because there is simply no single person/farm that has even close to enough hashpower to attack BTC. Bitmains pools only add to 30% of the total hashpower ([https://www.blockchain.com/pools](https://www.blockchain.com/pools)?). And this is made up of many many different farms and individuals who are easly able to switch out to a different pool and spoil his attack (as they would naturally do to prevent a loss). compare the two yourself [https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/hashrate-btc-bch.html#6m](https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/hashrate-btc-bch.html#6m) Considering how quickly the new BTC hashpower came online these apear be one or two single farms. These are big farms. I would not be trusting them to not attack a little chain like BCH out of the kindness of their hearts.

24

TechCynical Crypto God | CC: 70 QC | BTC: 17 QC 2 months ago

it seems that u/ethswagholder has joined us below. Talking any shit about bch instantly summons this sockpuppet so im not surprised. However you actually give a decent argument so ill give you the time.  1. No you cant short with high leverage. As someone whos only used bitmex to trade for the past 8 months. 100x shorting is only available on btc and the next highest would be ETH with the introduction of the newest contract. 2. Sure but again it isnt profitable in the long run or short term. 3. Sure this is a 51% attack after all. However places like bitpay/pophandcash/selly.gg already have 51% attack notifiers. Itll be hard to find someone going directly p2p without even knowing whats going on currently. ( also has to be within those few hours you have ) 4. again sure assuming one was successfully carried out the value would in fact drop however youll never close your order on bitmex since someone would have to buy your order. Given the liquidity of anything but eth and btc on bitmex youll probably lose like half your profit. 5. this isnt profit this is just you mining what you want now. 6. the chain isnt more secure by itself after all theyre both the same with minor adjustments ( segwit support,rbf,1mb cap ). It just has more hashpower poured into it. Which means any logically person would realize someone did this purely for profit since it would happen to literally any other sha256 coin in a second. After the first dump you probably wont be able to profit much at all. So again maybe the first time youll get some decent results 40-50% profit but given the liquidity and the attempts in the past itll show theres a reason why people dont just do it.  [see bitpico for example](https://ethereumworldnews.com/bitpico-bcash-defense-censor-blame-cry/) his 100% confidence turned out to be 0% after he changed his wording to 51% attack to stress test after he failed and lost from a short (bch rose around 25% that day).       

2

aaqy Karma CC: 100 ETH: 629 2 months ago

Shorting a coin when an exploit was found or an attack was successful used to be very profitable, but seeing how prices stay the same lately after those are found make it even riskier. It is quite an irony but it seems that dumb investors contribute to a chain's security by eliminating the incentive to attack it.

0

dontlikecomputers Crypto God | NANO: 69 QC | CC: 28 QC 2 months ago

fiat has the dumbest investors of all, hence it will survive for centuries past its expiry date

1

lamb0x 2 months ago

Shorting is not the only way to maximise an attack. Its one among a set of ways to maximise profits if you are planning to attack a coin.

1

ethswagholder 2 months ago

Bcash getting attacked would be bad exposure for the whole industry because these scammers have gone to extreme lengths to steal bitcoin's name and squat on bitcoin's reputation. This is why anyone invested or interested in crypto needs to out this scam for what it is - an unsecure little shitcoin fork that brings no tangible benefits to the industry as a whole. edit: MM wont waste any time trying to portray bcash attack as an attack on bitcoin itself.

4

Kain_niaK Crypto God | BTC: 255 QC 2 months ago

Nano will save the world! I heard that there is now a second store that accepts it.

0

ethswagholder 2 months ago

Fuck do I have to do with Nano, -ve karma denotes Ive been given negative karma on the nano subs, you dingus. Atleast Nano has some sort of original tech vs a pure shitcoin like Bcash, ill give nanners that.

2

---Mike---- Crypto God | Trolls CC | BTC: 60 QC 2 months ago

"Bitcoin is a shitcoin"... that's rich! Bitcoin doesn't need "original tech" anyway. It has worked with 99.99% flawlessness for nearly a decade. No other coins can compare. BCH is the p2p cash version of Bitcoin. The chain was created to preserve the qualities of sound money.

0

ethswagholder 2 months ago

Lol Bcash is centralised altcoin thats has poor security, sad community, terrible developers and a bunch of scammers for C-levels

2

---Mike---- Crypto God | Trolls CC | BTC: 60 QC 2 months ago

None of those statements are true...at all. Poor security? What are talk on about? "Scammers"? again, trite talking point. Have any evidence of anything you parrot? I take it you don't use cryptocurrency. I use it daily, BCH, to pay contractors all over the world. Check out www.fivebucks.com (disclaimer: I'm not affiliated at all with this site) to see for yourself. Just one example of all the awesome FUNCTIONING products on the BCH network. Also, there are no "c-levels" for BCH. There are companies with executives but Bitcoin has no leadership, unlike all the alt ICO vaporware.

0

DaveyWilliam 2 months ago

But on 1st of Sep Bitcoin Cash will prove why it's the real bitcoin. \-Handle real world use loads and not stall \-Maintain cheap fees Something bitcoin core can't handle in the next bull run without scaling

0

ethswagholder 2 months ago

K > -Handle real world use loads and not stall There is your first problem. A spam test organised by paid sockpuppets =/ real world use case.

2

DaveyWilliam 2 months ago

Once its shown to work, the same test will be run on the bitcoin core. Then all will see which blockchain can scale.

1

TechCynical Crypto God | CC: 70 QC | BTC: 17 QC 2 months ago

but I thought the reason for congestion in 2017 for jihan doing a spam attack :\^)

0

[deleted] 2 months ago

[deleted]

6

click_again 1 - 2 years account age. 200 - 1000 comment karma. 2 months ago

It's ok my friend, many people bought into bch shills. Bitcoin has many many forks, ie. bitcoin cash, bitcoin gold, bitcoin diamond, etc. But the bch fork go as far as claiming its fork is the real bitcoin. Sigh. Maybe you should consider this: Why are the bch holders so keen to burn their coin? Eg. Bitmain and many others sending bch to a burned address. Such bch is lost forever. It doesn't make sense. If bch is the true bitcoin and is valuable as claimed by them, why are they doing the exact opposite tho. The burned bch will fare much better if it is instead converted to fiat and donated to charity. You know, saving the babies from dying.

1

Absolute__Muppet 2 months ago

You bought into a scam. Bitmain wanted a miner controlled alternative to Bitcoin incase Bitcoin scaled and ate into Bitmains minning fees. Jihan and Ver wanted to replace Bitcoin with Bcash because they were greedy. Bitmain converted most of their mined Bitcoin for Bcash in order to prop up the coin and make it look like Bcash was the real Bitcoin.  Bitmain then tried doing an IPO this year but their filings show the terrible position they are now in. They hold so much Bcash that they are basically illiquid and would crash the BCash market if they tried selling. They also lied about half of the investors they said they had and some investors are now publicly warning against participating in their IPO. A number of Bitmain teams have abandoned the company in recent weeks.  Ver, Jihan and Craig had a meeting yesterday to discuss the future of Bcash (clearly decentralized if 3 people can decide its future) and Ver now plans to launch an ICO for his website with a special airdrop for Bcash holders.....another scam. The noose is tightening on them all.  Bitcoin is king.

10

amorazputin Investor 2 months ago

lol at ico for his website. oh roger ver.... why do people give these clowns and bcash any attention whatsoever. it has been a massive scam since day 1. anyone still invested in this garbage is a miner stuck with expensive hardware wanting to profit or a completely brainwashed loon who will now invest in this vercash ico

2

[deleted] 2 months ago

ICO on bitcoin.com using workhole. Sponsored by nChain ;)

0

forcedfor 2 months ago

jihan and roger only present in the drama by their absence. Craig is cranking his stupidity up to 11 and so are trolls defending him. nChain is trying to release new client with only some text info available now. (they want changes to the network by November) ABC is also aggressive with their November plans putting their foot down on some changes which are contested by other respected devs.

5

lamb0x 2 months ago

Tl; dr rundown: Bcash continues its ponzi scam...

4

xt1818 1 - 2 years account age. 200 - 1000 comment karma. 2 months ago

BTC Hashrate is a bubble!

66

BestTraderBoi 2 months old | New to crypto 2 months ago

I wouldn’t call that growth rate parabolic in the same way I would the 2017 pop

7

ultraking_x2 CC: 31 karma 2 months ago

Someone should open a prediction market on Augur about the btc hash rate

7

elduderino197 Crypto Nerd | CC: 22 QC 2 months ago

So someone turned on an ASIC farm. Whoop t do.

39

chachapeh 45 cmnt karma 2 months ago

do you realize mining is hardly profitable right now? nobody would spend this much money on asics unless they were feeling bullish...

15

AgregiouslyTall Crypto God | CC: 84 QC | ETH: 56 QC 2 months ago

You have blinders on. There are plenty parts of the world where Bitcoin mining is insanely profitable when compared to a conventional business.

3

chachapeh 45 cmnt karma 2 months ago

Mining profitability depends mainly on current bitcoin price and hashrate. Price has plummeted this year, we are very close to yearly low. Hashrate has quadrupled this year. Currently btc mining is extremely close to break even, for the biggest players. Maybe you are the one with blinders on.

0

AgregiouslyTall Crypto God | CC: 84 QC | ETH: 56 QC 2 months ago

> Mining profitability depends mainly on current bitcoin price and hashrate. Yeah let's ignore the actual most important and main recurring expense which directly limits profitability (electricity) > Currently btc mining is extremely close to break even, for the biggest players. That's just wrong. Is 133% profit per day considered close to break even now? Because the biggest players are paying ~$0.05/kWh all in, some are paying even less. I know you want to act like I have no idea what I'm talking about but I do and actually run a small farm in upstate New York - we are nowhere near close to only breaking even daily. Maybe you don't have blinders on, if that's the case you just don't know what you're talking about (see: mining is extremely close to break even - anyone who knows anything about mining knows that isn't the case except for some residential miners who make up the minority of hashrate)

2

FollowMe22 10210 karma | Karma CC: 4139 ETH: 2198 2 months ago

If you live in a part of China where electricity is free it's profitable.

3

HonkeyTalk 10 months old | Karma CC: 0 2 months ago

Or they have some new ASICs that are way more efficient than anyone else has.

44

chachapeh 45 cmnt karma 2 months ago

lol right because developing the best ASICS is dirt cheap right?

2

HonkeyTalk 10 months old | Karma CC: 0 2 months ago

No, because Samsung and a giant telecom company in Japan have shown interest in developing ASICs.

1

chachapeh 45 cmnt karma 2 months ago

and would this interest exist if they werent bullish on bitcoin? i dont think so lol

1

HonkeyTalk 10 months old | Karma CC: 0 2 months ago

Considering mining profitability is always calculated in local fiat currency, and the market for crypto mining ASICs is growing, I'd imagine they would have an interest in it regardless of their stance, either personally, or as a company, on cryptocurrencies.

1

funciton 33559 karma | CC: 145 karma ETH: 890 karma 2 months ago

Developing hardware takes time. Bitmain can't plan on short-term bullish trends.

4

chachapeh 45 cmnt karma 2 months ago

who said I was talking short term? we are still in a bear market

1

ratchet500 Flippening 2 months ago

New efficient asics aren’t exactly cheap to design and produce.

8

BitsAndBobs304 New to Crypto 2 months ago

almost like one would need a large corporation to accomplish such a thing? one with access to production of hardware?

7

HonkeyTalk 10 months old | Karma CC: 0 2 months ago

Surely that can't already exist in this world!

2

elefandom Redditor for 6 months. 2 months ago

Ya but if they are finished now, might as well use them to get back some of the cost!

12

Urc0mp Crypto God | CC: 325 QC 2 months ago

Ath on hashrate seems mundane. Only interesting if it drops a ways imo.

0

amorpisseur Crypto God | BTC: 169 QC | MIOTA: 30 QC 2 months ago

Why?

4

Logpile98 Crypto God | CC: 97 QC 2 months ago

Because then it means miners are shutting down

4

EVM-is-Skynet 3 months old | Karma CC: 60 ETH: 255 2 months ago

Its natural to go up with use but not the other way around.

4

manorama1 2 months ago

But is there actual use? BTC transactions have dropped sharply since 2017 December. Yet the Hashrate goes up.

0

AtomicSpeed CC: 252 karma 2 months ago

Transaction rate and hash rate are not in any way connected; completely different unrelated mechanisms, it's a common misconception about what the "compute power" of Bitcoin actually means. In fact the entire computational requirement for the Bitcoin network is so small all the mining hardware could be turned off and it would run just fine on your mobile phone.

2

mikehomkh 2 months ago

GMO switched all their hashing off of BCH..

13

lamb0x 2 months ago

Bcash hashrate is less than 1/10th of the Bitcoin hash rate. Even if the whole BCASh hashrate moved to BTC, it wont cause such an increase. One miner moving off BCH will be even less of an effect on BTC

2

Quintall1 Crypto God | BTC: 329 QC | CC: 101 QC 2 months ago

Smart japanese.

6

Elidan456 2 months ago

They had fuckall on the BCH network. probably a grain of sand added to the BTC network.

1

VultureX2 Karma CC: 611 GPUMining: 441 2 months ago

Bitmain "testing" their new asics probably

90

Paedophobe Karma CC: 259 BTC: 1381 2 months ago

No it's "quality assurance" that the miners you buy are working... And then they keep working for a year until they send them.

14

maybebaby88 New to crypto 2 months ago

that evil corp should be stopped. This aspect of capitalism is really bad for ecology and people in general. i.e. Profit over morale and ecology. But what ya gonna do...

2

Kain_niaK Crypto God | BTC: 255 QC 2 months ago

That must be why they have accumulated so much litecoin. Then they only accept LTC for their new miners and all industrial Bitcoin miners will need to buy LTC, thus pushing up the price. It's like the Americans making sure oil is only ever sold in dollars.

0

Paedophobe Karma CC: 259 BTC: 1381 2 months ago

They are getting desperate. They accept USD and bch now. So it's like the us accepting usd and Bitcoin because they fear demand for usd is weak

6

Scrabo 2 months ago

Could be a new shipment 7nm chips to test. TSMC said they started volume production of 7nm a few months ago and Bitmain is one of their big customers.

5

dpeyer 2 months old | 20 cmnt karma | New to crypto 2 months ago

They will dump them after 1 year of "testing" when they are not profitable anymore to buyers.

28

LexGrom Crypto God | BTC: 161 QC 2 months ago

Which is a smart business move. Their competitors should do the same

0

m4sturb4tor Crypto Nerd | CC: 40 QC 2 months ago

Isn't that what they have been always doing?

22

[deleted] 2 months ago

[deleted]

1

rickybender New to Crypto | CC: 20 QC 2 months ago

May I ask how much you made in those 6 months? I would just like to see numbers and how profitable it 'was'.

1

[deleted] 2 months ago

[deleted]

2

rickybender New to Crypto | CC: 20 QC 2 months ago

That is awesome my friend, thank you for sharing. How much was the miner if you would share. I know I have seen them for 6k+, so I was just trying to run the numbers in my head. However, I believe that train has left the station lol

1

3

10 2

ilikeyouyourcool Yesterday

I find it strange that a month ago no one was commenting on these posts and then just before price action hits people are back.

2

--AnalBoy-- Yesterday

OMG for a split second I thought the title said Rupaul!

1

askepott1 Yesterday

He said "as soon as it's regulated", so his dreams are going to break as Bitcoin was made precisely to be not regulated. Regulation is the problem which you can clearly understand if you compare the 1920/21 crisis that could've brought USA down to the Great Depression which, due to government intervention, made a lot of people poor as fuck for many years to come. Market can balance itself if you let it (roaring 20's ftw).

2

CryptoMaximalist Yesterday

Rule II - No Spam

Referral linking is strictly prohibited and will be met with a long-term or permanent ban.
To mitigate abuse from throwaway accounts, a minimum of 20 comment karma with 10-days account age is required for comments and 100 comment karma with 10 days account age for submissions.
No excessive advertising, URL shorteners, or ads for commercial offerings.
No more than 2 comedy/meme posts allowed on the top page.
No more than 2 promotional posts per coin on the top page.

Rule II - No Spam

Website owners, writers, promoters and external social media account owners can only post their relevant content once per day.

Reasoning:

^(Sub Rules) ^| ^Expanded ^Rules ^| ^(Site Rules)

1

zo_o Yesterday

http://www.mauldineconomics.com/editorial/raoul-pal-bitcoin-is-mania-and-not-a-store-of-value-i-sold-out-last-week @<$2900

4

FrankieSaints Crypto God | Ripple: 90 QC | CC: 58 QC Yesterday

This just in: prices may go up some day!

2

Onderbox redditor for 3 months Yesterday

Rrrrrraaaaaaaaaaauuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuull

2

Papermoneyrummager Yesterday

Arnold, is that you?

1

the_qas Yesterday

Could also be a reason of homelessness after retirement 😂

5

WhiskeyTango311 Yesterday

If you have all your eggs in the 401k social security fiat basket, you’ll definitely be homeless.

11

YouCanWhat Redditor for less than 30 days Yesterday

As long as there are more and more pension plans that adds crypto/bitcoin as a % of their portfolio it will be good for retirement.

1

ABitcoinAllBot Yesterday

Here is the link to the original comment thread. Or you can comment here to start a discussion. Author: EffigyBoy

1

3

19 6

cryptolamboman Crypto God | Tronix: 182 QC | CC: 31 QC 5 hs ago

The most expensive part is the 0.1% fee taken by Binance 😁 hahaha

1

iolex Crypto Nerd | CC: 17 QC 8 hs ago

No one has ever said crypto is too expensive, imaginary situation.

1

ZumbiC Crypto God | CC: 95 QC | NANO: 22 QC Yesterday

I get nervous sending a few hundred bucks, imagine sending $600 million...

3

vrocha2020 Crypto God | CC: 59 QC | NANO: 38 QC Yesterday

Question is where did it send it to? Are they selling our funds?

0

marques99 Crypto Expert | CC: 54 QC Yesterday

$7 for ANY crypto related transactions is way too much!!! It’s technically one small transaction in a block.

5

viper2097 Crypto God | BTC: 88 QC Yesterday

It was about 21 sats per byte which was the recommended amount to be included in the next block at the time.

1

rehtori69 1 - 2 years account age. 200 - 1000 comment karma. Yesterday

There are cryptos with 0$ fees so even the 7$ was unnecessary.

1

orbital_one Crypto Nerd | CC: 39 QC Yesterday

How secure are those $0 fee blockchains? How resilient are they to spam attacks and such?

2

rehtori69 1 - 2 years account age. 200 - 1000 comment karma. Yesterday

You should take a look at projects like iota and nano

4

the_upland_hunt redditor for 3 months Yesterday

Before the $7 fee is put on blast for being high:

This transaction was a lot more 'complex' than the vast majority of transactions. Let's not overthink the word complex though.
It appears as if Binance could have paid $3.75 for an almost guaranteed confirmation in the next block.
Most users will still pay about 6 cents for next block confirmation right now and through most of 2018 besides the madness in January and early February.
Permissionless. People theorycraft about calling their bank for a free wire. If you're able to do that, you've already done many, many things beforehand for multiple institutions to grant you the ability to transfer over $600M. You sought permission. You don't need to ask permission with BTC.

8

TL_Jman Crypto God | VEN: 174 QC | CC: 46 QC | WTC: 16 QC Yesterday

It’s the low end of transactions not the high end that cost so much. $3 coffee is always a good barometer.

5

total_letdown New to Crypto Yesterday

Well technically it is expensive in its current state because one has to switch between crypto and fiat, and that is something which cannot be avoided today.

4

Chumbawla redditor for 3 months Yesterday

In this thread: learn how cheap and easy traditional banking is.

3

2n1aljf33 Yesterday

The “high” amount of the fee is probably a matter of convenience, as the transaction was not particularly large at just 1550 bytes.

2

pabou Yesterday

Lol. Banks move fiat for free, Bitcoin moves real money for $7. What's the problem?

2

Bob_Jim redditor for 3 months Yesterday

Unfortunately you, like many others are misinformed about how both banks and BTC work. Which is totally OK, because crypto is all still relatively new really. I’ll try to explain what I mean and hope this helps clear up a few misconceptions. Banks would charge far more than $7 for moving the same sum of $600m. Also, BTC doesn’t charge $7 fees for all transactions, the fee is based on the size (not value) and the person sending BTC can choose the speed/priority which means choice to pay less (banks don’t give you a choice). Banks provide below market rates for foreign exchange transactions (about -2%). BTC doesn’t charge more for sending across boarders. Businesses can take payments using BTC for just a couple of cents. Lightening network allows thousands of smaller transactions to happen super quickly and just as cheaply. Not forgetting that banks charge businesses monthly fees, transactions fees, paying in fees, and also around 2% for processing purchases by card. All these costs are eventually passed onto customers as part of the prices they charge for goods and services (so you do pay in the end).

4

sliddis Yesterday

$7 is not free. That's $7. And how much to move the equivalent of $0.02?

Nano is the only feeless crypto I know of.

0

Hanspanzer 7 hs ago

holding $600M in any other coin than BTC. no thanks!

1

Shichroron Yesterday

You have 100s of low fee coins (either because of low usage or low fees by design). The point is that you're not going to use any of them to store $600M, therefore you replace transaction fee with an exchange fee (and more steps along the way that could go wrong)

2

alritedi Yesterday

Neo

0

Justtryme90 Yesterday

Steem is another.

0

loneystoney44 Yesterday

IOTA is another

0

jadedlion Yesterday

Like I'd ever put 600mil on something not PoW like BTC.

2

killerstorm Yesterday

Yeah they had to spend $7 to move money between their own accounts. I don't see this so exciting as usually this operation is free.

13

fakersdozen redditor for 6 weeks Yesterday

Right. You just got charged $$$ to move your own money to yourself? My banks have never charged me to move $$$ between accounts.

7

andrew_nenakhov Yesterday

Thing is, there are no such thing as 'moving funds between you own accounts' in bitcoin. Its all just addresses. You can, of course, have a 'bank' that keeps all money of all customers on one address, and keeps tabs on who owns how much, then you could possibly expect transferring between such customer accounts for free (or not for free, since banks have to earn their buck too)

7

Patello Yesterday

Great, I'll remember that next time I need to transfer $600 million

5

SDROL_IS_TRT Yesterday

Especially via PayPal which is (somehow) a valid comparison metric for transactions this size.

2

Bitcoin_21 redditor for 3 months Yesterday

they spend 7 dollars to send 600 million - nice. they could have spend even less but i guess they choosed "high priority" or did not use segwit :-P

8

BrettDidNothingWrong redditor for 5 weeks Yesterday

A wire transfer for someone with $600 million in a real bank would be 100% free. As usual Bitcoin is more expensive than traditional systems.

0

Illuvater Yesterday

Hahaha, if you had such an amount, you would pay more than 7 dollars a year for your acount.

0

BrettDidNothingWrong redditor for 5 weeks Yesterday

Bank accounts are free for high dollar accounts. So are wire transfers. You must have like $10 in your account lol, even my account is free for keeping over 5k in it.

2

ptisn1 Yesterday

Hmmm you obviously know nothing about banking. There’s no way you’d be able to immediately transfer out $600 million from any bank. They would most likely not have that amount immediately on reserve to pay out for a single customer.

2

xtal_00 Yesterday

Money stored in a bank ceases to be “your” money when deposited. In the $600m example, not only would they not be able to do it instantly, but you’d be filing one hell of a lot of paperwork on what you intended to do with it.

2

KalEll66 redditor for 3 months Yesterday

Try sending $4.... you still get charged $7. We aren’t millionaires!!!!

0

KalEll66 redditor for 3 months Yesterday

Thank you for your comments. I have a better understanding. I just hope the fees from last year don’t return and I don’t think they will with the info you provided and seeing Segwit increase as well as Lightning being developed and hopefully operational by 2019.

1

grinnersaok Yesterday

> just hope the fees from last year don’t return and I don’t think they will with the info you provided and seeing Segwit increase as well as Lightning being developed and hopefully operational by 2019. If fees don't return (eventually) to those levels, then the security of the chain will be compromised. Fees are what pay miners as the mining reward gets smaller and smaller. It is fees which guarantee Bitcoins monetary policy, and therefore scarcity and value. If you are hoping that fees on-chain stay low forever, then you have misunderstood Bitcoin and are going to be a prime target for someone to scam you into buying 'the next bitcoin' with 'transactions per second, low fees, instant, cheap' buzzwords. Transaction fees are currently about 1% of the mining reward (https://fork.lol/reward/feepct), and this will eventually be 100% of the reward, so to ensure sufficient hashrate, you better hope for sufficient fees. You either pay through inflation, or through fees. I want sound money, and as such, acknowledge that people using the blockchain will have to pay for said security through transaction fees.

0

KalEll66 redditor for 3 months Yesterday

Not forever... in 2120 when block reward stops, they can have fees. Now they can get their block rewards. The block reward is significantly higher than any fee. Let’s not worry about 100 years from now when we won’t be here...only saying that in relation to bitcoin not global warming or nuclear war. If we survive 100 years, my great great grandchildren should pay fees and hopefully they will be the ones collecting. For now, miners should focus on block rewards. One step at a time. If fees return to those levels as you stated you hope, there won’t be a useful currency to the average person. Why send $3 to someone if fees are $25?! (Venmo can do that). No one will use it and adoption drops. I can’t comprehend your mindset wanting high fees while we still have large inflation in block rewards. Fees can be dealt with further down the line. But if you want high fees, set your Trezor to the max. You’ll be first in line. Plus off chain (Lightning) fees will be significantly lower than any on-chain transaction. Options are coming.

1

grinnersaok Yesterday

You just answered your own concern. Off chain fees will be much lower. I specifically stated 'on-chain': "If you are hoping that fees on-chain stay low forever, then you have misunderstood Bitcoin".

1

KalEll66 redditor for 3 months Yesterday

Not at all. Bitcoin needs to scale soon. Time to put up or shut up. They have the smartest minds working on scalability. Otherwise it’ll fade away for a decade which maybe a good thing while the devs build cause it can’t be sustained in its current state. 20 years to develop a technology, yet we still trust and give them the benefit of the doubt. Without adoption, there is no technology just great minds being wasted. Support the devs no matter the frustration.

1

inb4_banned Yesterday

Fees are under 10 cents for a transaction if you can wait a couple hours

1

ultimate55 Yesterday

On chain is about 5 cents for me. Lightning transactions is almost free (1 sat)

5

KalEll66 redditor for 3 months Yesterday

Any update on Lightning? How is Lightning possible if Segwit is 48%?

1

CannedCaveman Yesterday

Please reply if you understood the explanation of u/quintall1 below? He went out of his way to explain it to you. Maybe even thank him for his time? :)

1

BTC_Forever Yesterday

LOL we have a Conbase heavy user here, thinking that Bitcoin is all about using Conbase...

0

ultimate55 Yesterday

It's possible, or uses another hosted wallet service that charges customers high fees to make revenue. It's the bad/dark side of Bitcoin. A lot of new users do not understand or do not go through the process of truly owning Bitcoin and keeping private keys. If we all use centralized exchanges/wallets, it's not too different from our traditional banking system.

0

bitcoinpasada redditor for 7 weeks Yesterday

Please try to learn some more about Bitcoin before posting this kind of criticism.

19

OkThatsProblematic redditor for 3 months Yesterday

Enlighten us.

0

Quintall1 Yesterday

First of all, use this bear market. educate yourself, to give the answer next time ! try to help people like u/KalEll66 ! Knowledge is power, and by understanding how bitcoin transactions work you are a millenium ahead of all the people around you. So lets go: Transaction fees are calculated by how big they are, now how much money is in them. Look at this site: https://bitcoinfees.earn.com/ as you can see, the median transaction size is around 226bytes. The fastest and cheapest fee to get into the next block is around 14satoshi per byte, so 3164 satoshis fee for our median transaction. This is around 0.17USD right now. If you dont need a confirmation in the next block this can go way lower. (as low as 1-2 satoshi per byte, easy) So the above mentioned binance transaction was around 5981byte, so way, WAY larger then your average transaction. this is because it probably is thousands of smaller transactions put together into one wich makes it larger. This is the reason for the 7 dollar fee, since you still have to pay the tx fee per byte. So your 4 dollar transaction wont cost you 7 dollar, because it probably is way way way smaller then the big binance transactions. I hope you got it, and i hope you bookmark the site. you can check there if your wallet is overcharging you in fees at any given moment you want to transact. Cheers !

11

KalEll66 redditor for 3 months Yesterday

Thanks

2

KalEll66 redditor for 3 months Yesterday

Thanks for clarifying. I just remember last year, sending $8 to a friend being charged $25 fee from Coinbase. I know Coinbase implemented Segwit now so hopefully that won’t happen again. https://transactionfee.info/charts/payments/segwit

1

bgovern Yesterday

Had this changed recently? I made a $250 usd transaction about a year ago, and it cost me $20 to move the coins from localbitcoin to my wallet, and another $20 to make the final transaction. I gave up on it as a means of exchange after that. It seemed more like gold, a good store of value, but not something you but stuff with.

3

the_upland_hunt redditor for 3 months Yesterday

I've paid anywhere from less than 2 cents to 15 cents for next block transactions since about the middle of February. What happened Nov 2017 to the end of January 2018 has seemed to create a long lasting impression that bitcoin transactions are always huge. An assload of network upgrade adoption and exchange tranaction batching techniques have occured since then. I'm fine with 2 cent on-chain transactions right now. If they approach 30 cents, I'll fund an even larger lightning channel. Lightning has been working great for me. Instant, practically 0confirmation transactions that cost a penny of a penny.

2

Bob_Jim redditor for 3 months Yesterday

Localbitcoin is a third party charging you fees for their service - that’s not the BTC transaction fee and you don’t need to use them (you can use some exchanges to purchase any amount of BTC without paying fees by placing stop orders, look into it). The other fee is the transaction fee, there has been a lot of development over the last 12 months that have improved this with Segwit being the most significant. Last year you probably paid over the odds for a couple of reasons - (1) you didn’t know you could choose your fee by selecting a priority/speed of transaction. (2) Segwit wasn’t an option back then. (3) You transferred during the crazy bull run that saw networks overly busy and miners able to charge higher fees. Good news is now (1) you know (2) Segwit exists (3) the networks and exchanges have significantly increased capacity since last year and you can choose to transact when it’s quieter. BTC is still pretty far off being ideal for being used for smaller everyday transactions but there’s loads of improvements coming (Lightning Network being the most exciting for me) and more credible 3rd party solutions than ever before (Bakt for me is really interesting, although not a favourite of many die hard BTC fans). Hope that’s useful...

1

bgovern Yesterday

Actually it was about 15% commission for localbitcoins, that isn't included in the $20 transfer fee. Thanks for the info though, I might have to give this another shot.

2

Bob_Jim redditor for 3 months Yesterday

The whole point of BTC is that it’s different to traditional banking. With all new stuff, it’s best to read the instructions first otherwise you might end up thinking something doesn’t work just because you don’t understand how it works. Worse still, you could end up giving other people the impression something doesn’t work just because you don understand it properly. With BTC there are loads of resources online to help people do their own research. For this specific misunderstanding about high transaction fees, I’ve found the following video that should help you avoid paying too high fees again.... https://youtu.be/SpTDIK7VYFM In addition, my favourite go to channel for truly understanding BTC is here..... https://www.youtube.com/user/aantonop Hope you have time to check these out and trust you will find them useful.

10

laggyx400 Yesterday

My transactions are usually $0.008. using Segwit if that matters. If I use my lightning channel its less than a Satoshi.

15

KalEll66 redditor for 3 months Yesterday

Segwit matters so much. Without Segwit bitcoin is just a 1mb block size crypto with the best devs. It’s going on the right direction again. I hope it is sustained: https://transactionfee.info/charts/payments/segwit

0

coreythechemist 1 day ago

I wonder how a company like Binance manages access to the receiving address(es).

5

dam76 6 hs ago

LOL you have a team of 20 people double-checking twice every address.

1

ABitcoinAllBot 1 day ago

Here is the link to the original comment thread. Or you can comment here to start a discussion. Author: TheAdrrock

1