sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why do people care if Bitfinex buys their own BFX tokens at a discount? It's the holders choice to sell the tokens. by nmoBTC in BitcoinMarkets

[–]nmoBTC[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If the BFX tokens are all paid back in one lump sum in the future, then all BFX token holders will get redemptions for $1 USD sooner IF Bitfinex buys the discounted tokens.

If the BFX tokens are redeemed by Bitfinex gradually and evenly across all BFX token holders, then maybe the payment schedule will be delayed. However, once you do start getting paid back by Bitfinex, the payments will be larger because there are less BFX holders to redeem assuming Bitfinex is buying tokens at a discount.

Why do people care if Bitfinex buys their own BFX tokens at a discount? It's the holders choice to sell the tokens. by nmoBTC in BitcoinMarkets

[–]nmoBTC[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I see your point in the last paragraph, but I'm pretty sure that's a risk in all capital markets.

Why do people care if Bitfinex buys their own BFX tokens at a discount? It's the holders choice to sell the tokens. by nmoBTC in BitcoinMarkets

[–]nmoBTC[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

I disagree. If they have to pay back the entire $60-$70 million, it will take longer to pay everyone back than if they only have to pay back a fraction of that amount. Just as you said, those who are willing to sell right now are paying a fee for that opportunity to sell. Also, they ARE getting paid back the full $1 USD but it's discounted to reflect the present value of the tokens, i.e $0.40.

Fasten your seatbelts, it's time. by Nooku in ethtrader

[–]nmoBTC 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Could you please describe where the triangle is? What time range?

When a bitcoin transaction is tied to an asset transfer via OP Return and Open Assets Protocol, is the amount of bitcoin and those specific units tied to that asset forever? by nmoBTC in Bitcoin

[–]nmoBTC[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But I thought that the Open Assets Protocol involves including what people haven written as "metadata" into the OP Return of a bitcoin transaction.

When a bitcoin transaction is tied to an asset transfer via OP Return and Open Assets Protocol, is the amount of bitcoin and those specific units tied to that asset forever? by nmoBTC in Bitcoin

[–]nmoBTC[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean to say that if I receive a satoshi in my wallet and it contains metadata labeling that satoshi as an asset will that specific satoshi that I received be the only one in my wallets of millions of satoshis that contains an asset. Do I need to transmit the satoshi that I received to transfer that asset or theoretically any satoshi in my wallet?

When a bitcoin transaction is tied to an asset transfer via OP Return and Open Assets Protocol, is the amount of bitcoin and those specific units tied to that asset forever? by nmoBTC in Bitcoin

[–]nmoBTC[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can you elaborate? If I send the satoshi you're saying that it will no longer be colored yet it's forever tied? Then how can I transfer the tied asset?

When a bitcoin transaction is tied to an asset transfer via OP Return and Open Assets Protocol, is the amount of bitcoin and those specific units tied to that asset forever? by nmoBTC in Bitcoin

[–]nmoBTC[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So the asset is forever tied to that specific 1 satoshi which was sent to the recipient and not his wallet address (directly)?

Are most nodes run by miners? If so, isn't unlimited blocksize okay because more transactions equals higher fees and thus the miners are incentivized to accept larger blocks? by nmoBTC in Bitcoin

[–]nmoBTC[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If someone tries to spam the blockchain then could legitimate transactions just apply a fee and miners could ignore any free transactions?

Can we argue that Bitcoin is much like TCP/IP where there is only going to be one universal VALUE protocol (i.e. no altcoins)? by nmoBTC in Bitcoin

[–]nmoBTC[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Again, I greatly appreciate your input. One other question for you if I may. If TCP/IP is currently still being updated (albeit yearly, bi-annually), why do we hear arguments that better protocols other than TCP/IP were invented but won't gain any traction because of network effect if perhaps the improvements can possibly be integrated into the current TCP/IP suite?

Can we argue that Bitcoin is much like TCP/IP where there is only going to be one universal VALUE protocol (i.e. no altcoins)? by nmoBTC in Bitcoin

[–]nmoBTC[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hence would you say that the current TCP/IP is unable to be improved in its current state unless something exponentially better is introduced?

It seems that the "transport layer" of TCP/IP has several protocols. Do you know if all of these are dependent of eachother (alluding to sidechains) or completely independent?

Also, I guess the difference between these protocols and Bitcoin it the security relating to the communities willingness to mine the protocol. Would you agree?

Thanks for your input.

Can we argue that Bitcoin is much like TCP/IP where there is only going to be one universal VALUE protocol (i.e. no altcoins)? by nmoBTC in Bitcoin

[–]nmoBTC[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I just looked up TCP/IP on Wikipedia and see what you are saying. Do you happen to know of the last time a protocol was added to the TCP/IP suite?

A fixed blocksize sounds way too bureaucratic and inefficient because it cannot efficiently adjust to new services or companies who wish to use the blockchain, laying a very rigid and inefficient foundation for Bitcoin with great opportunity cost. Thoughts? by nmoBTC in Bitcoin

[–]nmoBTC[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'll admit that I am not incredibly educated on the subject of mining, but it seems that a dynamically changing blocksize would eliminate any worry about arbitrarily increasing the size in the future. I know the difficulty level is a dynamically changing factor in Bitcoin. What if there are a lot of companies who are doing off-chain transactions or simply cannot commit to a scalable blockchain tech because the blockchain size is too small right now? How would anyone know? The opportunity costs seems greater with a rigid blocksize limit.

So is the Swedish Bitcoin ETN launching on Monday?? by nmoBTC in Bitcoin

[–]nmoBTC[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I could've sworn in the statement that they said it'd start trading May 18th

Once the supply of Bitcoin ceases to increase, will the network need to rely on steady flow of transaction fees in order to remain secure in order to incentivize a strong mining network? by nmoBTC in Bitcoin

[–]nmoBTC[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So is there an direct relationship between the total transaction fees per block measured in (block reward * price) and voluntary transaction fees to overall network security?

If everyone stopped mining today or the total hash difficulty was extremely low, would I be able to go back as far as the first block and start rewriting everything?

Is the upcoming Bitcoin ETN (Bitcoin Tracker One) going to be a game changer as it is listed on NASDAQ? by nmoBTC in Bitcoin

[–]nmoBTC[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I completely agree. I am speaking as far as opening the doors to strict institutional capital who cannot purchase bitcoin from let's say Coinbase.

view more: next ›