You should qualify this with contentious hard fork. I get that any hard fork results in a chain split but unless it's contentious the minor chain will have zero value. Bitcoin has hard forked before. ETH hard forked 3-4 times post DAO-hard fork. Of all those forks, the only split chain that carries any value was the contentious DAO hard fork resulting in ETH and ETC. The other forks were non-contentious and all went off without issue and without any attempt (to my knowledge) of anyone trying to maintain value on the other chain.

Got my ledger nano S today. Seems pretty cool. I have ETH but I never use it like I use bitcoin. So today was one of the first times I've transferred it to my new wallet. Not gonna lie, it was pretty sweet how instant it was. Been kind of getting used to the delay in BTC, was def pretty cool to see another bullish case for why ETH has potential.

On a side note, I don't know anything about the technology behind a hardware wallet. All I know is I'm told they are super secure, even if your computer is compromised yadda yadda yadda. Just load the app in chrome and link it up and your in action. The ease of it just didn't seem very secure. I'll be more then ****ing pissed if I put a lot of funds on this thing and some day down the road "someone hacked the app and put a backdoor and was able to intercept data and decode and steal the funds" or something along those lines, you get the point. I can see why if a BTC etf comes out it will most likely trade at a nice premium.

idk how ledger works because it also uses a secure element, unlike trezor.

but the general advantages of hardware wallets remain the same. The private key is generated securely and never leaves the device. The only thing that the device can be programmed to do is to push signed transactions that you can broadcast. Basically, your private key cant be pushed out of the device. I believe that you can flash bad firmware onto trezor, but every official one is publicly signed and verifiable-- plus every flash completely wipes the device memory.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/com...********_hack/

Finex hack coins on the move to exchanges. Wondering to myself though, if someone did want to wash the stolen coins, wouldn't the lock play be to exhange them for dash coin, transfer the dash to somewhere else then sell the dash?

ATH, congrats everyone

Dash sucks. They would use Monero.

Depends what exchange you look at. Bitstamp, bit finex I think so. Inflated my gox was $1242 iirc

It's not that mind-boggling if you do some research on the other point of view. There are a lot of drawbacks to the SegWit soft fork.

Once you accept the fact that bitcoin will hard fork someday as Heltok and NLNino have pointed out:

Then, you can start to create some code that actually solves bitcoin's problems in a real way. Want to solve quadratic scaling of sigops for all transactions - do a SegWit hard fork. Want to solve malleability for all transactions - do a SegWit hard fork. Want to make bitcoin more extensible - do something more like Tom Zander's Flex Trans. etc.

There's a lot of good stuff people could be working on rather than trying to shoehorn code into the existing bitcoin framework. Once you realize that a hard fork is inevitable at some point, you begin to realize how foolish it has been to package SegWit as a soft fork.

definitely, because the gox price was super legit on all accounts :P

Initially I thought 3-4k would be a likely price if the ETF was approved. I'm now wondering if closer to something like 10k wouldn't be out of the question. I mean hell, literally no one would be selling and everyone would be trying to buy. I've gotten a bit more aggressive on my buying wondering if pre ETF may be the last good entry point.


If it gets denied and slammed. no biggy, I'll just keep adding. I'd expect it to get back to it's uptrend when the speculation money gets shaken out due to the fact it's being used so much now I think this is a much stronger bull market then in the past.

Also, does 1 ETF approval open up the floodgates for other stuff like ETH?

this needs to be reposted every time there's a new ath

**** me. So I start loading my ledger nano. I create 3 accounts and send coins to all 3. Each different account keeps it's own wallet address. I have the wallet app open and see all deposits get credited to the accounts. I close the wallet app. I open the wallet app a couple minutes later and see the 3rd account has 0 coins and also now has a different address. This is the type of **** I was worried about. It better be able to be sorted out.

Appears I was wrong about the receive address staying the same that's only with the ETH. Anyhow, the coins are still not showing up. Granted they have yet to be confirmed, but the other coins that aren't confirmed yet showed up and these coins showed up earlier so doesn't make sense they would just disappear. After confirmations I guess I'll start sweating more. Obv contacted support.

I've had no issues with nano s. Not entirely sure what you were doing. I definitely took my time and learned how the device worked before sending any transactions of value I cared about

O.k.. showed up upon a confirmation. Still seems a bit flaky. I found a reddit thread with people who had had the same thing happen to them and they had to go through some re synchronization. One of the biggest barriers for mass money in this has to be storage. That's where the ETF comes into play. Until they get hacked and 50% of all coins go on the lose crashing BTC forever.

Orderbooks are empty, this is when we go parabolic for a bit.

It's bonkers time!

A bug was recently discovered with Cloudflare, which Kraken and many other websites use for DoS protection and other services. Due to the nature of the bug, we recommend as a precaution that you change your Kraken security credentials:
Change your password
Change your two-factor authentication (remove and re-enable it)
Clients who use API keys should generate a new set of keys
You should similarly change your security credentials for other websites that use Cloudflare (see link below for a list of possibly affected sites). If you are using the same password for multiple sites, you should change this immediately so that you have a unique password for each site. And you should enable two-factor authentication for every site that supports it.
The Cloudflare bug has now been fixed, but it caused sensitive data like passwords to be leaked during a very small percentage of HTTP requests. The peak period of leakage is thought to have occurred between Feb 13 and Feb 18 when about 0.00003% of HTTP requests were affected. Although the rate of leakage was low, the information that might have been leaked could be very sensitive, so it’s important that you take appropriate precautions to protect yourself.
The problem is thought to have only started 6 months ago and 2FA or API keys generated before that time are probably not affected, but we recommend changing them anyway because the bug existed for years.


finex uses Cloudflare.. in before they lost all their coins again! Aso noted is I received no e-mail from finex.

Obv this seems very minor issue. Just crazy how it will never seem to end though, there will always be some sort of leak somewhere.

Yes, in the rare cases where a hard fork is needed to fix a bug, it wouldn't be contentious.


>. Of all those forks, the only split chain that carries any value was the contentious DAO hard fork resulting in ETH and ETC.

Duh, because the only people on ETH are people who want Vitalik to be their King. Those people are the exact opposite of Bitcoin users.

I've done research, trust me. There is a lot of FUD, not actual drawbacks.
It may be possible that someone does a contentious fork in the future, but that doesn't mean Bitcoin will have hard forked.


You lose all credibility if you suggest Tom Zander's broken proposal. It does not make anything more extensible. He is an amateur hack who is working solo on an alt-coin. No thanks.

I think the anticipated drawback after the ETF denial is overstated. If I knew anything about trading, this is one of the few bets I would make. We have the shillbert ETF decision coming at the end of March, so most people FOMO'ing a Bitcoin ETF will at least hold until then.

To clarify, are you saying Bitcoin is not designed to serve the use-case of daily transactions regardless of the scaling solution?

So you believe that bitcoin will be 1 MB forever? I don't think the majority of the bitcoin community agrees with that sentiment. That's why I quoted Heltok and NLNico noting that it's preposterous that that bitcoin will still have 1 MB blocksizes 50 years from now.

That's the crux of why bitcoin is stuck right now. 1 MB forever is such a stupid stance, we're obviously going to scale on chain at some point. So let's figure out the best way to make it happen.

BU is far from an optimal solution. I think there's better ways to handle the situation. But clearly, leaving the blocksize up to the developer community has been an utter disaster. That's why BU is gaining traction. Basically, it's core's own fault that there's a competing implementation that's gained enough support to block movement of any kind in the short term.



I understand not liking Zander and/or not liking the FlexTrans implementation, but I haven't seen any good arguments against taking the well vetted concept of key-value pairs/JSON-like notation and applying it to bitcoin. That seems to be pretty much the way the bulk of data moves these days, so why not apply it to bitcoin.

I'm still a bit confused how a bitcoin ETF is different then GBTC. I understand GBTC has weird rules and what not. I guess what I'm getting to, is how does the ETF work. They sell shares backed by BTC at BTC market value.

At what point do they start buying more BTC from the open market to add to the fund?

If I understand correctly, you could take delivery of the BTC if you own a certain amount anyway, but why would anyone pay a premium for COIN then take delivery instead of buying on the open market? The premium is basically for the storage and what not and your giving that up if you take delivery. So if no one takes delivery, the fund never needs to buy more BTC? If the premium grows too large do they then buy more BTC and issue more shares?

If it doesn't get slammed via both ETF denials, it would be super bullish. I'm wondering if the effect of an approval is over estimated or under estimated. .

You're right on with the difference between GBTC and a real bitcoin ETF. GBTC had liquidity problems because of the way that the system was set up. GBTC exploited some legal loopholes to allow it to be tradeable, but with the loopholes came some odd requirements that hurt liquidity.

Basically, to generate more shares of GBTC, you had to hold bitcoin within the fund for 1 year, then at that point your shares were tradeable. Because of this 1 year holding period, there's no way for the system to make a quick response to elevated demand, which is why GBTC was trading at a huge premium to the bitcoin price. It was the only way for some people to buy bitcoin in a 401(k)/IRA scenario, and demand outpaced supply.

The proposed ETF's such as COIN, should be able to add shares quickly by buying more bitcoin and immediately selling it as shares in the ETF. I'd imagine there will still be small arbitrage opportunities, but the price difference between the ETF and bitcoin should be small.

No one should ever take delivery of their bitcoin from the fund, but the fact that you can means that the price of the ETF should never be significantly below the price of bitcoin. Otherwise, you could take delivery of your bitcoin, sell them, then buy more COIN shares.

With those balances in place, COIN or any bitcoin ETF should allow institutional investors and/or IRA investors to buy/sell bitcoin at almost exactly the same price as buying/selling real bitcoin. And adding institutional investors and IRA investors is a huge untapped demand that could drive the price of bitcoin up significantly.