QUOTE(nond @ Jul 26 2017, 04:27 PM)
Suitable for normal public - discusses about the history, technology and how it could be implemented in enterprises.This post has been edited by Enigmatic: Jul 26 2017, 06:00 PM
Bitcoin and other Cryptocurrencies, Comprehensive guide on first page.
|
|
Jul 26 2017, 05:41 PM
Return to original view | Post
#61
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
3,291 posts Joined: Jan 2005 From: Nowhere Everywhere |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 26 2017, 06:14 PM
Return to original view | Post
#62
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
3,291 posts Joined: Jan 2005 From: Nowhere Everywhere |
QUOTE(nemo 1.0 @ Jul 26 2017, 05:45 PM) A simple explanation basically is this:1. ICO, token issuance are considered a security, therefore subject to federal securities law, under the objective to protect investors. 2. No charges nor findings of violation will be brought on the DAO token issuance (SEC is OK with them). 3. But SEC reminds investors to be careful with their money. 4. Any organisation selling/offering such tokens to the US should engage with the SEC for requirements and disclosures. Basically the same thing as current practice - Those who engaged with the SEC with thumbs up will be able to offer their ICOs to US residents. Those who for some reason are not approved by the SEC/having problems engaging with SEC should exclude US citizens from their ICO. |
|
|
Jul 26 2017, 06:32 PM
Return to original view | Post
#63
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
3,291 posts Joined: Jan 2005 From: Nowhere Everywhere |
QUOTE(nemo 1.0 @ Jul 26 2017, 06:22 PM) thanks, excellent summary From my perspective - SEC finally made public what they think about ICO/token sales. Startups/founders should now know how and who to approach if they would like US citizens to be onboard and contribute.so there is going to be a certain amount of regulation - well I guess that's good, no more wild wild west of crypto. then again, what is the implication if any on ETH? since I understand that right now ETH's main/popular usage is as an ICO vehicle? P.s. amusing sig On a less positive note, this means some bureaucracy while dealing with SEC, but nothing too different than what is going on currently (either you take the initiative to find out if it is OK for US citizens to join, go through potentially lengthy paperwork process and still be stuck in grey regulatory areas, or just exclude them. In fact Singapore has a similar set of legislation). On ETH directly, I think minimal impact. BTC, other altcoins, or fiat could also be used as funding for ICOs, so really it does not have a specific impact on any specific crypto. ETH as an ICO/crowdfunding platform by itself isn't affected as well, since the focus of SEC is on whether there are legal implications for an organisation to issue tokens in US - Which does not take away the token issuing functionality of Ethereum, and most ICOs done do not allow US citizens in the first place so status quo. This post has been edited by Enigmatic: Jul 27 2017, 01:26 AM |
|
|
Jul 27 2017, 01:29 AM
Return to original view | Post
#64
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
3,291 posts Joined: Jan 2005 From: Nowhere Everywhere |
QUOTE(nemo 1.0 @ Jul 26 2017, 06:40 PM) Updated my earlier message for better clarity - Realised that I should have elaborated more.In a sense this could be a good thing, e.g. instead of staying in a grey area, startups can now (and know they should) work with the SEC to include US citizens as part of their contributing list, effectively increasing target audience. Time will tell. |
|
|
Jul 27 2017, 02:05 PM
Return to original view | Post
#65
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
3,291 posts Joined: Jan 2005 From: Nowhere Everywhere |
QUOTE(Secruoser @ Jul 27 2017, 01:42 PM) Isn't that because current exchanges are still very much centralized? (one owner/corporation) Yeap - Decentralised exchanges like Bancor, 0xProject, KyberNetwork, Etherdelta, Waves Platform. Those in existence have fairly low liquidity at the moment (and upcoming decentralised exchanges are working to solve this liquidity problem), but it's a matter of adoption... Fortunately there is no shortage of innovation in this space and regulatory bodies are playing catch up now.I read somewhere that a decentralized exchange is coming soon, or probably more. Addendum: Didn't realise wengherng posted above already. This post has been edited by Enigmatic: Jul 31 2017, 05:13 PM |
|
|
Jul 29 2017, 02:06 PM
Return to original view | Post
#66
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
3,291 posts Joined: Jan 2005 From: Nowhere Everywhere |
QUOTE(kmarc @ Jul 29 2017, 10:36 AM) I find it illogical that forking BTC to create another chain i.e. BCC can create value out of nothing. The value is created from 1. Enhancements done to BCC which necessitated the chain split. 2. Carried over value from dilution of 21m BTC to 42m "BTCs". Expectation is that BTC's value should drop due to the perceived increase in quantity due to the introduction of BCC, and market correction kicks in, etc.If one owns 1 BTC valued at 2700, does that mean after the fork, he will have 1 BTC 2,700 and 1 BCC 2,700? Assuming nobody dump to get profit. Even if BCC drops to 100, it is still creating value from nothing.... |
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 29 2017, 02:19 PM
Return to original view | Post
#67
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
3,291 posts Joined: Jan 2005 From: Nowhere Everywhere |
|
|
|
Jul 29 2017, 03:07 PM
Return to original view | Post
#68
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
3,291 posts Joined: Jan 2005 From: Nowhere Everywhere |
QUOTE(archangel22 @ Jul 29 2017, 02:36 PM) Theres no such thing as 42m BTC. You are looking too much into a micro scale.BTC is only 21m. BCC not even exist yet. And its not that you hve doubled your coins. If you have legacy coin, you have the option to either go with BTC or BCC. Nothing abt dilution. One implementation is incompatible with the other. BCC players consensus-split s not same with the forked Ethereum. But to put into perspective that some may understand, BCC is like the DAO. If you put your BTC into an exchange supporting BCC, thats the DAO funds. The market does not work that way - People have a choice to put their money into whichever asset they believe represents best of their own interest. Hence, "dilution" and "carried over value", which then corresponds to the Metcalfe's law. The "dilution" is spread between two networks (which by one factor is represented by the number of coins), and the existing value is a "carried over value" from existing BTC's network. Note I wasn't saying "you will double your coins with this!". You have a really annoying penchant of putting words into others' mouth. Stop that. Addendum: Yes the aggregate value of both markets could exceed the existing market value of BTC alone. Yes value conservation can happen. The market is irrational and is terrible with speculatory pricing, yes we know that. This post has been edited by Enigmatic: Jul 29 2017, 03:13 PM |
|
|
Jul 29 2017, 04:38 PM
Return to original view | Post
#69
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
3,291 posts Joined: Jan 2005 From: Nowhere Everywhere |
QUOTE(davidletterboyz @ Jul 29 2017, 04:05 PM) This was my question earlier (many pages back). I'm fairly new into this and wasn't here when Ethereum forked. What happened back then? Did ETH and ETC had the same initial value? Not my material - Just delivering this across QUOTE After TheDAO and the contested hard fork, Ethereum Classic launched at at price of $0.75 before settling at $2.85 within the first 72 hours of trading. Ethereum itself experienced volatility, trading at around $15 immediately prior to the fork, before crashing after the ETC launch to a low of $7 before ultimately settling in the $11–12 range for the next two months. In the short term, the ETH+ETC value was roughly equivalent to ETH before the fork, in the medium term it actually dipped below that initial figure, and then ultimately, of course, both networks experienced colossal growth. This post has been edited by Enigmatic: Jul 29 2017, 04:39 PM |
|
|
Jul 31 2017, 12:41 AM
Return to original view | Post
#70
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
3,291 posts Joined: Jan 2005 From: Nowhere Everywhere |
Cross posting this here - Thanks to those who helped review this writeup - You know who you are.
https://medium.com/@Enigmatic1256/hard-fork...es-c345f9449d3b Highlighting main points: QUOTE The key point which I would like to highlight is this — A soft fork could be delivered implicitly without needing participants explicitly opting in. The soft forked chain is backwards compatible, and users do not need to even realise an upgrade to the network was rolled out. In addition, the nature of not having an unforked chain also means that a participant would not have a venue to opt-out for an introduced protocol when it is entirely against the participant’s view. Therefore a soft fork is either all (or vast majority) or none at all, creating a situation where participants of a network do not get to choose for themselves — either for good or for bad — for a proposal to be carried out on the network without having everyone else agreeing to their views, ala liberum veto. For a signalling requiring vast majority (80%, 95%, etc) support, the minority then gets side-lined. Non-upgraded blocks are being censored, and majoritarianism made apparent when there is a requirement of a majority hash rate signalling for a soft fork (hence tyranny of the majority). For the case of SegWit, choosing not to upgrade meaning having your blocks potentially rejected as a miner, transaction drop offs, and delayed transaction appearance. From this perspective, a hard fork provides more freedom to the participants of a network, in the sense that the participants are given choices and they could exercise the right to choose from the options provided. Miners make their own decision on which chain to provide hashing power towards, nodes maintain the chain they’d want to, and users send transactions on the chain of their choice. There would not exist a majoritarianism nor minoritarianism dictating how the rest should play along a set rules; Rather each individual is empowered with the ability to make a choice and to work on the choice they have made. Admittedly chain splits from a hard fork risk splitting asset price backing the chain (and subsequently hashing power and users), but whichever chain with the most active development providing mass acceptance has shown to be fairly resilient and able to sort itself out over time. Furthermore since a vast majority of hash rate is expected to carry out the soft fork, that would imply a confidence of having users, miners and nodes to be on the updated chain, thereby invalidating reasons to expect otherwise on a hard fork chain. This post has been edited by Enigmatic: Jul 31 2017, 01:09 AM |
|
|
Aug 2 2017, 10:39 AM
Return to original view | Post
#71
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
3,291 posts Joined: Jan 2005 From: Nowhere Everywhere |
QUOTE(HHCC @ Aug 2 2017, 10:38 AM) I think you got it wrong. BTC holders can only claim BCH/BCC if they own the token at exactly 1 Aug 12:20 UTC, not a second earlier or later. Plus you have to know your private keys to your public address or kept it an exchange that supports BCH/BCC like Bittrex or wallets that will automatically create a BCH/BCC wallet like Freewallet. Nah - What he meant was to create a fork of BTC again and again for "free money" lol.Buying new BTC now doesn't entitle you to BCH/BCC. |
|
|
Aug 7 2017, 10:00 PM
Return to original view | Post
#72
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
3,291 posts Joined: Jan 2005 From: Nowhere Everywhere |
|
|
|
Aug 10 2017, 07:39 PM
Return to original view | Post
#73
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
3,291 posts Joined: Jan 2005 From: Nowhere Everywhere |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 11 2017, 01:13 AM
Return to original view | Post
#74
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
3,291 posts Joined: Jan 2005 From: Nowhere Everywhere |
QUOTE(wengherng @ Aug 11 2017, 01:08 AM) I just transferred this afternoon. Yea... 36 confirmations, which the counter on Bittrex is usually delayed (vs the block confirmations on etherscan).Took unusually long......somewhere around 30 minutes before it appeared in my account as under confirmation, and another 15 minutes or so before it finally became available for trading. Addendum: If it isn't showing up even on pending, I think you should double check with Bittrex already. jack2 - Sure you've sent to the correct address on the txid? This post has been edited by Enigmatic: Aug 11 2017, 01:14 AM |
|
|
Aug 11 2017, 10:46 PM
Return to original view | Post
#75
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
3,291 posts Joined: Jan 2005 From: Nowhere Everywhere |
QUOTE(shankar_dass93 @ Aug 11 2017, 08:40 PM) Damn, these crypto founder's (network designers) got to modify/upgrade the blockchain to ensure smoother transactions at a quicker time. I can write a blockchain which produces blocks in 1 second.If only i was an IT guy, i would have used this as an opportunity and created my own network/blockchain. Any partners that would wish to join me ? With no PoW. Hence no security. Maybe use DPOS. But nah, it's actually Bittrex - Requiring high number of confirmations + their site counter is actually delayed (i.e. etherscan shows 36 confirmations, Bittrex will probably show 10~14 confirmations). Seems to be much slower these days too. |
|
|
Aug 12 2017, 12:20 AM
Return to original view | Post
#76
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
3,291 posts Joined: Jan 2005 From: Nowhere Everywhere |
QUOTE(shankar_dass93 @ Aug 11 2017, 11:57 PM) Eh. Didn't realise the Filecoin ICO was today. Maybe that's why the wait for hours.But other than that nah. My experience with Bittrex was consistently 30 minutes whereabouts for the 36 confirmations to clear, during normal days. When there's an ICO of Filecoin's scale... WooTz - Didn't realise you posted a couple pages back! Happy to see that you're enjoying life now. Do pop by once a while and say hi. This post has been edited by Enigmatic: Aug 12 2017, 12:23 AM |
|
|
Aug 13 2017, 05:32 PM
Return to original view | Post
#77
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
3,291 posts Joined: Jan 2005 From: Nowhere Everywhere |
Guys. Be careful with your Poloniex accounts. I don't use Polo so I didn't go through the details but do have a read for yourselves.
https://www.reddit.com/r/PoloniexForum/comm...erification_is/ This post has been edited by Enigmatic: Aug 13 2017, 05:33 PM |
|
|
Aug 14 2017, 04:07 PM
Return to original view | Post
#78
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
3,291 posts Joined: Jan 2005 From: Nowhere Everywhere |
QUOTE(wengherng @ Aug 14 2017, 02:03 PM) Has anyone bought any Binance coins? I was testing Binance - Bloody hell. Deposits are fast, confirmations are pretty much real time.Was trying to do my due diligence last week, then left it aside over the weekend to spend some time with the family, and came back this morning to find that it had exploded 400% between last Friday and this morning. Considering that the coin gives the owner a 50% discount on transaction fees on the Binance platform, I'm guessing it would be more and more attractive as more and more coins are listed on Binance. I think it is probably prudent to own at least some. If this exchange gets more coins on it'd be awesome, and I will be ditching Bittrex. |
|
|
Aug 15 2017, 04:31 AM
Return to original view | Post
#79
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
3,291 posts Joined: Jan 2005 From: Nowhere Everywhere |
QUOTE(dc_talkz @ Aug 15 2017, 03:52 AM) https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/4Dt4epAvydJgNQbGC4xD6g Basically NEO is working with Microsoft on a workshop for blockchain enthusiasts (including smart contracts). This would be a recurring event with the kick off starting on the 20th August.Some kind soul can translate for other bros out there thx In other words... NEO to the moon! Lol |
|
|
Aug 17 2017, 07:22 PM
Return to original view | Post
#80
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
3,291 posts Joined: Jan 2005 From: Nowhere Everywhere |
Guys (and girls) with Trezor, please be careful - The hack is now made public (anyone wants to test?
https://medium.com/@Zero404Cool/trezor-secu...ys-761eeab03ff8 Addendum: Link to hotfix (I think. If in doubt you guys can double check with Trezor). https://blog.trezor.io/trezor-firmware-secu...-2-5ef1b6f13fed This post has been edited by Enigmatic: Aug 17 2017, 07:35 PM |
| Change to: | 0.0508sec
0.48
7 queries
GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 28th November 2025 - 05:30 AM |