Keranu 2017-01-21 05:47:24
Thanks abracadabra
Keranu 2017-01-21 05:47:56
I checked this out the other day. I think it might be a little outdated though
Keranu 2017-01-21 05:48:33
Maybe not outdated, it says real time. I don't know, I thought I remember finding some incosistencies
Keranu 2017-01-21 05:50:10
Are there advantages to using trading service within your own country? Like less fees and faster transfers?
abracadabra 2017-01-21 05:51:32
don't think so
Keranu 2017-01-21 05:51:57
Doesn't really seem to be any cheaper depending on the country either from what I can find
Keranu 2017-01-21 05:52:32
I signed up for Cryptonit but haven't provided any bank info yet just to see if I can find lower rates elsewhere
Keranu 2017-01-21 05:53:00
The rates don't seem that bad, but it's hard to tell exactly what the fees are for
Keranu 2017-01-21 05:53:26
https://cryptonit.net/fees-and-terms
piqure 2017-01-21 05:53:28
^^^ WARNING: any URL may lead directly or indirectly to COIN-STEALING MALWARE! ^^^
Keranu 2017-01-21 05:53:42
It has some nice features though and looks secure
mintinious 2017-01-21 05:55:23
Poloniex, while sketchy, has a fee of 0.015%
Keranu 2017-01-21 05:55:48
That's an odd percentage
Keranu 2017-01-21 05:55:54
What's sketchy about them?
mintinious 2017-01-21 05:56:43
They've had a hacking issue in the past
mintinious 2017-01-21 05:57:07
you could double-click the withdraw button and it would withdraw twice
Keranu 2017-01-21 05:57:14
lol
mintinious 2017-01-21 05:57:22
They keep everything in cold storage though
Keranu 2017-01-21 05:57:44
I'm just a little weary of hacking issues. But I don't plan on storing money in an online wallet
mintinious 2017-01-21 05:57:52
0.015% means the price needs to move by $2.80 in order to break even
Keranu 2017-01-21 05:58:45
Not sure what you mean exactly
mintinious 2017-01-21 06:00:17
I'm not super confident in my math
Keranu 2017-01-21 06:00:19
Would you recommend Coinbase? At least, do you think their fees are reasonable?
riclas 2017-01-21 06:00:38
i'd recommend gemini before coinbase...
riclas 2017-01-21 06:00:42
if you're in the us
mintinious 2017-01-21 06:01:07
Coinbase wants lots of ID, it takes about 7 days for trades to go through from your bank, and the trading fee is $1.80
mintinious 2017-01-21 06:01:34
I tried one trade and was flagged for illegal activity because I hadn't uploaded a drivers license.
Keranu 2017-01-21 06:03:23
I had signed up for Coinbase once but I cancelled it
Keranu 2017-01-21 06:03:42
I couldn't even verify my ID with their shitty camera software
Keranu 2017-01-21 06:04:10
They only required that for using a debit/credit card though I believe. Eventually they verified me through my checking account over a few days
Greybits 2017-01-21 06:04:28
Have you ever heard of a man in the middle (mitm) attack? It usually involves something like a proxy in between you and your endpoint that spies on or can alter your data. Have you ever heard of Lightning Network and Segwit? Know what they are? MITM
mintinious 2017-01-21 06:05:02
They're in the middle, but if they're open source...
mintinious 2017-01-21 06:05:11
and cryptographically secured...
pigeons 2017-01-21 06:05:32
its just nonsense and not a arguable point
Greybits 2017-01-21 06:05:42
Do you know what the company behind lightning network does? They provide tracking and "detangling" of bitcoin mixer users. Does that sound nice?
mintinious 2017-01-21 06:05:54
IDK what to think about segwit, a lot of people seem to be against it. Lightning seems overcomplicated but a very good idea.
Greybits 2017-01-21 06:06:12
enough said. use your brain guys.
Greybits 2017-01-21 06:06:13
cya.
Keranu 2017-01-21 06:07:30
What's the advantage of Gemini over Coinbase riclas
Keranu 2017-01-21 06:08:19
Gemini's fee system is convoluted lol. Not a bad thing
Keranu 2017-01-21 06:09:37
Sorry my other client crashed
anbass 2017-01-21 06:11:05
So I am new to bitcoin core. I just downloaded it onto my computer and withdrew money from an online gambling website using the address provided from my bitcoin. However, it has not finished syncing with the network and the money I withdrew is not showing up in my bitcoin. Should it appear in my bitcoin after it is finished syncing or did I do something wrong?
Keranu 2017-01-21 06:12:00
I really wouldn't know, but I'd think it should appear
Tootoot222 2017-01-21 06:12:03
anbass: it'll probably show up when it finishes synching
Tootoot222 2017-01-21 06:12:07
it could take several days to synch
Keranu 2017-01-21 06:12:17
How long ago did you do the transaction?
Tootoot222 2017-01-21 06:12:26
you might want to put the transaction id and/or the address into the search bar on https://blockchain.info
piqure 2017-01-21 06:12:27
^^^ WARNING: any URL may lead directly or indirectly to COIN-STEALING MALWARE! ^^^
Tootoot222 2017-01-21 06:12:38
and it'll show you if it went through
pigeons 2017-01-21 06:12:38
it will show up once you have synced to the point where you were sent the money
mintinious 2017-01-21 06:13:05
blockchain.info should show it within ten minutes of the transaction
mintinious 2017-01-21 06:13:14
If you sent it over ten minutes ago, you can see it there
pigeons 2017-01-21 06:13:14
no worries just wait till synced
Tootoot222 2017-01-21 06:13:22
^which could take several days
anbass 2017-01-21 06:13:38
I did the transaction yesterday
anbass 2017-01-21 06:13:46
alright thanks everyone!
Tootoot222 2017-01-21 06:13:55
it should probably be confirmed by now, then, but your client just hasn't downloaded the transaction yet
midnightmagic 2017-01-21 06:18:02
segwit is a mitm attack?
midnightmagic 2017-01-21 06:18:22
lololol that's a particularly stupid and incorrect interpretation.
midnightmagic 2017-01-21 06:19:32
And the people who are against segwit are merely extra-loud. Don't confuse their loudness with population size.
mintinious 2017-01-21 06:20:11
Why are they against it though?
midnightmagic 2017-01-21 06:21:20
mintinious: Because they are hateful and destructive?
midnightmagic 2017-01-21 06:21:58
None of their arguments are technically sound. Almost none of their arguments are logically sound.
frib 2017-01-21 06:22:00
isn't more likely that they simply dont understand its implications?
grubles_ 2017-01-21 06:22:06
they are seemingly tech-illiterate, or just malicious
midnightmagic 2017-01-21 06:22:37
frib: It's more likely they are interested in stunting growth and exercising power over bitcoin's operation and development.
mintinious 2017-01-21 06:23:23
A larger block size is indeed a temporary solution, but that doesn't make it a bad solution.
frib 2017-01-21 06:23:43
mintinious, i thought segwit + LN was a definitive solution
midnightmagic 2017-01-21 06:23:44
... are you differentiating that from segwit?
midnightmagic 2017-01-21 06:24:03
segwit *is* a larger blocksize.
mintinious 2017-01-21 06:24:28
LN isn't definitive either
midnightmagic 2017-01-21 06:24:52
LN is basically orthogonal to the adoption of segwit.
mintinious 2017-01-21 06:25:30
Off-chain transactions, with the net difference being put on the chain, only cuts down on on-chain transactions if people who send also recieve
mintinious 2017-01-21 06:25:44
LN won't make that much of a difference
midnightmagic 2017-01-21 06:26:00
... that's basically completely untrue.
frib 2017-01-21 06:26:11
midnightmagic, why is it untrue
Tootoot222 2017-01-21 06:26:51
midnightmagic: you mean LN depends on solving transaction malleability, of which segwit is one solution
midnightmagic 2017-01-21 06:26:52
You don't have to act as a hub, you can act through them just fine.
midnightmagic 2017-01-21 06:27:33
Be an endpoint all you like, that doesn't preclude your use of LN.
frib 2017-01-21 06:28:00
the thing I dont get about LN is that it is only an optional feature, meanwhile the main blockchain is still subject to size issues
Tootoot222 2017-01-21 06:28:37
frib: it incentivizes people to get off the main chain and switch to using LN, to avoid the problems
midnightmagic 2017-01-21 06:28:41
Neither do you *have* to snap a channel closed. Your money is still yours.
frib 2017-01-21 06:29:28
Tootoot222, i guess that would still leave the main chain open to potential flooding of transactions, no?
Tootoot222 2017-01-21 06:29:37
yep
midnightmagic 2017-01-21 06:29:41
Neither does LN *require* segwit.
midnightmagic 2017-01-21 06:29:47
Nor any other malleability fix.
frib 2017-01-21 06:30:14
i was aware that segwit was a scalability fix, what does malleability have to do with it?
Tootoot222 2017-01-21 06:30:30
segwit isn't the scalability fix, LN is
Tootoot222 2017-01-21 06:30:34
segwit just makes it easier to implement LN
frib 2017-01-21 06:30:41
Tootoot222, well it increases block size somewhat
achow101 2017-01-21 06:30:43
segwit's fixes malleability, it was actually it's original purpose
frib 2017-01-21 06:30:56
achow101, how?
Tootoot222 2017-01-21 06:31:04
malleability is bad because it lets you morph the transactions that you signed through LN
Tootoot222 2017-01-21 06:31:13
you'd have to monitor the blockchain for way more stuff than you would otherwise
Tootoot222 2017-01-21 06:31:18
to see if the other party is cheating
achow101 2017-01-21 06:31:35
frib: for certain output types (newly defined ones) the signatures are moved to a different part of the transaction which is not hashes for the txid
Tootoot222 2017-01-21 06:31:57
frib: due to the way signatures work, there are multiple signatures that sign the same transaction, segwit segregates the witness (signature) data into another data structure
midnightmagic 2017-01-21 06:32:08
segwit is a scaleability *step* in that it can accommodate additional tx, and in a cleaner way. malleability fixes are a side-benefit.
Tootoot222 2017-01-21 06:32:23
and thus there's no way to change the TXID by changing the signature
frib 2017-01-21 06:32:32
would mimblewimble be a definitive scalability fix
achow101 2017-01-21 06:32:53
AFAIK mimblewimble is a privacy thing, not scalability
frib 2017-01-21 06:33:05
achow101, i believe it is both in one
midnightmagic 2017-01-21 06:33:25
Further, other forms of scaleability are made much easier with the adoption of segwit-- e.g. schnorr signature aggregation.
Keranu 2017-01-21 06:34:13
Are Gemini's fees generally lower than Coinbase's?
Keranu 2017-01-21 06:34:52
Also looks like Circle may not have fucked me for overdrafts.
mintinious 2017-01-21 06:35:36
(as for trading - are we entering a second bubble?)
mintinious 2017-01-21 06:35:55
(The current rate looks very similar to early december)
Keranu 2017-01-21 06:36:00
I think bitcoin has been nothing but bubbles
frib 2017-01-21 06:36:27
it seems to me that there is a scalability emergency: bitcoin atm can confirm 300k transactions per day, network data shows that it is to approach an average of 300k transactions in the next month or so. Nobody seems to want to confirm this, what am I getting wrong?
midnightmagic 2017-01-21 06:36:28
Keranu: You mean aside from the fact that when I started using it it was $0.20 and now it's like $900+?
midnightmagic 2017-01-21 06:36:55
frib: Therea re many more orders of magnitude of trade of bitcoin from person to person offchain right now and they work just fine.
Keranu 2017-01-21 06:36:58
lol you must've been using it in 2012 huh?
midnightmagic 2017-01-21 06:37:14
frib: And blocks have been full for years now.
Keranu 2017-01-21 06:37:22
I just mean bitcoin is voalitle
midnightmagic 2017-01-21 06:37:24
Keranu: Bitcoin was never $0.20 in 2012.
Keranu 2017-01-21 06:37:40
It crashes and inflates a lot. Which is why I want in on it
Keranu 2017-01-21 06:37:43
2011?
frib 2017-01-21 06:37:55
midnightmagic, i think you're saying bitcoin fees are in equilibrium with off chain transactions, is this right?
midnightmagic 2017-01-21 06:37:59
For nearly all of 2011 it wasn't $0.20 either.
Keranu 2017-01-21 06:38:25
I've read it was like fractions of a penny at first, perhaps throughout 2011
Keranu 2017-01-21 06:38:45
And was super low until the pizza incident in 2012?
frib 2017-01-21 06:38:48
Keranu, volitility is decreasing all the time
Tootoot222 2017-01-21 06:38:52
frib: we're right up against the max limit https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?scale=1×pan=all
midnightmagic 2017-01-21 06:38:52
frib: No, I'm saying blocks have been full for years, and so the emergency you're describing isn't an emergency, nor does the fact that blocks have been full for years, matter.
piqure 2017-01-21 06:38:52
^^^ WARNING: any URL may lead directly or indirectly to COIN-STEALING MALWARE! ^^^
midnightmagic 2017-01-21 06:39:06
(In terms of a destructive force.)
Keranu 2017-01-21 06:39:11
It looks that way, frib. I beleive so
Tootoot222 2017-01-21 06:39:16
they've been "full" for about a year or so
frib 2017-01-21 06:39:30
Keranu, it's a fact, a matter of calculation
midnightmagic 2017-01-21 06:40:18
Keranu: No. Bitcoins were about $0.20 in.. I think late 2010-ish, and then were never $0.20 ever again. And now they're $900. "A series of bubbles" does not describe what Bitcoin is.
Keranu 2017-01-21 06:40:21
I wouldn't know, haven't looked into it. It just appears to be holding it's value steadily over the past couple years now
frib 2017-01-21 06:40:27
midnightmagic, presumably that implies there are people who want to exchange bitcoin on the block chain but can't because the blocks are full (assuming they don't want to pay the increased fee they resort to offchain transactions), right?
Keranu 2017-01-21 06:41:32
I'm not criticizing bitcoin or using bubbles in any literal definiton. I find it attractive because it looks easy to get into when it goes low
Tootoot222 2017-01-21 06:41:33
frib: transactions don't disappear after a block is mined, even with a low fee most transactions get confirmed eventually
Tootoot222 2017-01-21 06:41:40
it just takes time, until there's less activity
Tootoot222 2017-01-21 06:41:48
then the lower fee ones get scooped into a block
mintinious 2017-01-21 06:42:32
So if we reach the limit, fees will skyrocket as users fight to have their transactions confirmed.
midnightmagic 2017-01-21 06:42:34
frib: It mean there has been people requesting their transactions be included in blocks but have either not paid enough fees, or were generating masses of spam. The fact that blocks are full does not imply that it would be a good idea to accommodate everyone who wanted their tx on the blockchain. Furthermore, with RBF-type functionality (or just knowing the right someone in here for example,)
midnightmagic 2017-01-21 06:42:40
literally nobody I have encountered has gotten a tx stuck forever in a way the problem couldn't be fixed.
frib 2017-01-21 06:43:20
Tootoot222, afaik it depends on how the fee is. for example yesterday i sent some btc for 0.01 mBTC which is much lower thant he going rate an it got confirmed regardless. but afaik if you send 0 fee (one used to be able to) nowadays it will simply not be confirmed
midnightmagic 2017-01-21 06:43:22
mintinious: We have already reached the limit. We reached it years ago. Fees haven't skyrocketed.
Xanather 2017-01-21 06:43:41
blocks have only really been full for the last 10ish months
midnightmagic 2017-01-21 06:43:59
Xanather: that is false.
Xanather 2017-01-21 06:44:13
https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?scale=1×pan=all
piqure 2017-01-21 06:44:14
^^^ WARNING: any URL may lead directly or indirectly to COIN-STEALING MALWARE! ^^^
midnightmagic 2017-01-21 06:44:21
That graph is false.
frib 2017-01-21 06:44:22
midnightmagic, high fees have already led people to resort to off-chain txns, right?
Xanather 2017-01-21 06:44:32
midnightmagic, why
frib 2017-01-21 06:44:42
i.e. people who otherwise would have simply transacted on the block chain
Xanather 2017-01-21 06:44:53
all I see on that graph is adoption stagnating :)
