sayurichick

coinlib, livecoinwatch, and countless others are all coinmarketcap clones.

https://datnoid.com is the only interesting one imo, and has unique data.

this contradicts what satoshi himself said.

I recommend people take a look at the satoshi emails

https://pastebin.com/Na5FwkQ4 https://pastebin.com/cKZPC1rF https://pastebin.com/wA9Jn100 https://pastebin.com/JF3USKFT https://pastebin.com/syrmi3ET

Confirmed to be real by Mike Hearn Himself

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6t2ci2/never_before_se...

take what this user is saying with a huge grain of salt as I see he has an agenda based on his other comments in this thread. Read the e-mails and decide for yourself.

for a more "idiots guide" approach, I recommend

https://learnbitcoin.cash

there is even a faucet (pretty much the site sends you a few pennies worth of BCH for free) and instructions to setup a wallet.

I wouldn't use Coinbase to buy BTC. The IRS already tried to obtain all customer data before, and they conceded with "only customers who spend over $20,000".

Even outside of privacy issues, Coinbase goes down during critical periods often. Price crashing and you want to buy/sell quick? The site will likely be down.

Outside of accessibility issues, Having Bitcoin on coinbase is more like an I-O-U and defeats the purpose of cryptocurrency imo, which is having the private keys to your funds which only you control.

I recommend this guide to set a multisignature wallet through CoPay and Glidera. And managing your keys with a password manager like Enpass.

https://gist.github.com/paOol/d6c78c339cc5c4df6dd745d3bc2cc5...

simple. I give a shit about yours.org BECAUSE they didn't create their own token to build a service.

Using bitcoin cash is another positive in my books, since it costs < $0.01 per transaction, versus $7~ per transaction on Bitcoin legacy.

you don't NEED to manage a new wallet.

you could create an account, post content, get paid, and technically pay for things by "cashing out" of "yours" to the receiving address for the thing you're trying to buy.

of course, there'll be a point where you DO want to load your account to be able to view content. That's likely in the long term when there are more users and higher quality content.

i work in react, so i just create a <componentname>.css file in the same directory and `import componentname.css` in my component.

I get the advantage of using either Sass or less or postcss with webpack and I get all the features as expected from this workflow.

The only thing I don't have is that unused class feature with my workflow, but I can probably find a postcss plugin which handles that.

I don't see any advantage of this library for me?

I agree. Having used both on small projects I was able to get started and finish quicker on Vue.

That being said, I use React more because of the larger community, (easier to find answers, and components) as well as more jobs for React vs Vue.

Also, Fiber introduces better animation performance, which i'll eventually use.

decentralization _does_ solve useful problems. The hard part is how do you get rich off of keeping data out of centralized servers, or having financial privacy, or creating platforms for USERS to get rich.

I'm a bitcoin maximalist but there is an upcoming ICO that i have to plug. I bought some to use, not to speculate on, but in hindsight I didn't realize there was an opportunity to make some profit.

It's a lending platform. P2P lending w/o the need of banks. You don't need credit for a loan because you put up collateral in the form of Bitcoin (or probably Ethereum as well).

I've seen all the pump/dump tokens, and i'm not interested in those. I'd actually use and benefit from this platform. I hold a pretty significant amount of BTC and I learned after selling some btc to never sell again. However, If there is a time when I need $USD, I can put up my BTC as collateral, have USD deposited to my bank account, pay interest on it, and once I've paid it all I get my BTC back as well.

It's so easy to be cynical this early, and I don't blame you but we're still 3-8 years from the "Facebook" era of crypto... you're upset because we don't have the ecosystem now, but that's also because people are still coming out with use cases.

lot of biased (or to be blunt, incorrect) information from a quick glance.

There is a lack of protocol depth understanding from the author. Most of the recommendations seem to serve as market "advice" if you want to call it that.

It's like Brexit but for Bitcoin.

For years the market wanted to increase the arbitrary 1mb blocksize limit. They finally got fed up with the stalling/lies and forked off.

people were misled into thinking Hard forks and >1mb blocksize was "dangerous". Bitcoin cash proves these to be false.

simple. The cost of pulling it off.

Even if I had a million dollars in funding, that would buy me mining power for oh so long. All the meanwhile, If I change the rules too much no one would even attempt to join my fork.

Even If I had another million dollars to pay developers to build services on my new fork, there'd be no users and no economic activity. The fork would die.

There SHOULD be a lot of hard forks. Why? Because they're voluntary and most will fail without doing harm (they require consensus to matter). The good ones will survive on merit and act as protocol upgrades.

as someone who was involved with bitcoin since 2009. you are VERY wrong.

this article will probably cover it better than I can. https://coingeek.com/core-think-bitcoin-cash/

but there was only ever the "big blocks" camp to begin with. Starting with Satoshi and Gavin Andresen. The "small block" movement is the newer "vision" and didn't/wouldn't exist if not for the financial interest suddenly employing the core developers.

The market has wanted bigger blocks for YEARS, and each attempt was slandered/DDoS'ed/attacked. Bitcoin Cash is the result of the market finally getting what it wants.

the rift controllers are nicer, at least until Vive releases their new ones.

Tracking is less of a hassle on the vive. Fewer cables, easier.

rift has their own ecosystem which can also play almost every game on the steam library.

vive primarily has steam, but with some hackery (revive), you can play some rift games.

Hardware-wise, they're practically the same. Comfort-wise, Rift takes it.

Development-wise? tough, but I think Rift takes it as well. You get a free license for unity or unreal4 i forget which. And they've improved the developer documentation greatly recently.

The good thing is most multiplayer games support both.

I like USING GraphQL (for existing services), like Github's API.

However, 99% of the tutorials on graphql , this one included, fail to show a real life use case. What I mean by that is a working Example of a SQL database from start to finish.

So this tutorial was very cool, but not very useful. Just like the rest of them.

I've yet to find a recent tutorial that covers full stack node.js + PostgreSQL/MySQL + whatever front end. It's always MongoDB or only covers the concepts of GraphQL.

miners mine because they want bitcoin.

you end up on a diff chain if the bitcoin software you run has different consensus rules. Nobody would do this because there is no incentive to be on a brand new network by yourself even if you managed to have enough hash power to survive the difficulty algorithm.

even if you do mine a lot of bitcoinXfork, good luck trading/selling it.

physical mail through the post office still exists alongside e-mail.

Just like credit cards will exist alongside cryptocurrency. There already exists merchant processors like BitPay that allow for 0-conf transactions. I'm not saying that's ideal or the permanent solution, but because bitcoin/crypto is software, it will continue to be improved upon over time.

the <5 seconds is not settlement. It's a 3rd party signalling to another 3rd party.

Bitcoin confirmations are just that, confirmations of transaction being approved by the network.

-blockchain is immutable -only gets written if valid -takes 10~60min to be confident of the reality -no chargebacks

i liked vuejs. I was able to go from start->completing a project much quicker than with React. That's because with react you have to also learn the entire ecosystem so that includes learning react-router, redux (or one of the 100 alternatives), webpack, etc. etc.

However, The biggest annoyance for me was getting the syntax/code formatting on sublime 3. That's what kept me from enjoying working in react. I decided to stop being lazy and configured it all to play nicely and things like react-create-app make it much more pleasant than spending all your time stuck on tooling instead of creating.

Also there is a job market for react and a good future ahead. There's no worry about react funding since facebook actively works on it. Vue is mostly donation/contributions and heavily relies on one individual. I think React has more of a learning curve but is the better bet long term.

measure? maybe.

But as someone who has been on node since v0.6, I have witness/experienced the improvements of the ecosystem over the years, as well as the number of articles/tutorials and projects.

The community is growing faster than any other language out there so I wouldn't be surprised at all to see node surpass java (in whatever metric you want).

if the buyer is going to move the coins anyways, it doesn't bypass the problem of stuck transactions.

plus, if they are in multiple wallets, you're paying fees for each transaction, which is already artificially high.

the future, once smartphones become a lot more powerful.

regarding #1, Core isn't incompetent; This is currently the exact situation they want to hold (preventing a hard fork and block size limit increase).

They have nefariously manipulated media communications for years to fool people into only accepting a soft fork because they've convinced people a soft fork is somehow safer and any hard fork is automatically contentious. As long as a hard fork is never initiated, they retain write access to the github repo and therefore maintain control of the "default" Bitcoin client. And as long as Greg Maxwell is in charge, he can continue to receive funding for his startup (blockstream).

But yea, crippling layer 1 intentionally and misleading people for their own benefit is incredibly fucked up.

the problem with (all?) multi-vitamins is the absorption rates are very inefficient. This gets a bit more nuanced when you consider there are diff types of each vitamin like Magnesium Oxide. ... Magnesium Citrate. ... Magnesium Orotate. ... Magnesium Chloride. ... Magnesium Lactate. ... Magnesium Sulfate. ... Magnesium Carbonate,

and you're not likely to get the best version in that multi vitamin.

The problem is that blockstream is continuing to push the "miners are blocking segwit" narrative.

They are trying to make it seem like Miners are Evil, therefore Segwit is good... as if they are related.

Here are some interesting facts.

-Theymos (Michael Marquardt) controls all the major bitcoin communication channels from r/bitcoin, to bitcointalks, as well as the core slack channel, and the bitcoin mailing list (being the person who sniped bitcoin.org).

- Every Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) used to have some specs to follow before being introduced to the community to be discussed and possibly merged in. This is how things have always been since the start. That is, until SegWit (a softfork implementation by Blockstream that fundamentally changes Bitcoin to benefit Blockstream ).

- SegWit gets its own website, it's own logo, and if you have been following the news the past 5 or 6 months, you'll also notice its been shoved down the community's throat as if it were god's gift to man.

- Segwit is a solution to fit whatever narrative needed at the time. From a "blocksize increase" to the scaling debate, to a "malleability fix" to a "quadratic hash fix" to blah blah blah.. It's a fix for all the things for all the things except the one thing we need right NOW, and that is a scaling fix.

- New Users are tricked into believing that the "economic majority" are in support of segwit, but this is due to not being able to speak out against segwit (see point 1 about major communications being controlled ).

- All the drama is actually about forcing segwit into bitcoin.

- Blockstream owns patents which they claim they have no plans on using offensively.

- If Segwit were introduced as a softfork (dangerous), it would be almost impossible to undo in the future versus a hard fork (which requires consensus).

"Treat any [gmaxwell] posts with extreme suspicion.." "He rationalizes his opinion as the only one that matters,.."

-Andreas Antonopoulos : http://i.imgur.com/UzMFKgZ.jpg

I don't think this is supposed to. It's more like when stores started to offer credit cards themselves because it was more profitable. This is the same idea, different execution.

https://enpass.io

I used to fear the same. However better technology/protocol is not enough to replace bitcoin. There are way better Protocols for messaging than SMTP, so why haven't we moved from e-mail?

Also, with services like https://shapeshift.io/ I can forever hold only bitcoin, and can pretty much instantly convert it to whatever other alt-coin I want. Lets say there is indeed a future encrypted-coin which provides perfect anonymity and perfect security and blah blah blah. Cool, I want to use $1,000 worth of encrypted-coin to buy some stuff, so I'll just convert my 0.01 BTC (or whatever equivalent) and do that.

I believe shapeshift has an API too, so it will eventually be even more seamless to "convert" among alt-coins. Might even be transparent (send XX bitcoin and it'll automatically be received as whatever coin).

So, When everyone knows bitcoin, and bitcoin has the largest market, and is the original cryptocurrency, and has the most infrastructure, and the most developers, and can already easily be converted into any alt-coin; Tell me, what is your best argument for how something like Monero will surpass bitcoin?