• Breaking News

    Thursday, September 6, 2018

    Home Unlabelled Bitcoin Daily Discussion, September 06, 2018

    Bitcoin Daily Discussion, September 06, 2018

    September 06, 2018

    Bitcoin Daily Discussion, September 06, 2018

    Daily Discussion, September 06, 2018

    Posted: 06 Sep 2018 02:00 AM PDT

    Please utilize this sticky thread for all general Bitcoin discussions! If you see posts on the front page or /r/Bitcoin/new which are better suited for this daily discussion thread, please help out by directing the OP to this thread instead. Thank you!

    Daily threads are fast paced! If you don't get an answer to your question, you can try phrasing it differently or commenting again tomorrow.

    We have a couple chat rooms now. Come say hello.

    Please check the previous discussion thread for unanswered questions.

    submitted by /u/rBitcoinMod
    [link] [comments]

    Everything hurts.

    Posted: 05 Sep 2018 06:47 PM PDT

    I don't​ always buy in the dip

    Posted: 05 Sep 2018 11:44 PM PDT

    Trump appoints another pro-bitcoin ETF commissioner to the SEC. Looks like 3-1 majority in favor of BTC ETF by next year.

    Posted: 05 Sep 2018 04:55 PM PDT

    The CNBC reverse indicator was right - the stop loss is reached

    Posted: 05 Sep 2018 05:36 PM PDT

    The $74 Million BTC Short Could Only Be Insider Trading

    Posted: 05 Sep 2018 11:28 PM PDT

    Last weekend, Lightning struck at the #LightningHackday in Berlin. Building the Lightning Network! ⚡

    Posted: 06 Sep 2018 12:51 AM PDT

    That drop was pure manipulation and not profit take, I have proof.

    Posted: 06 Sep 2018 03:10 AM PDT

    That drop was pure manipulation and not profit take, I have proof.

    Lots of people blame Goldman Sachs' decision to suspend their plans for a crypto trading platform for the drop that happened beetwen yesterday and today, but it's all wrong. Why? I searched for news about that decision but the oldest article was published about 20 hours ago, but strangely, the drop happened about 25 hours ago! So my theory is that Goldman Sachs shorted BTC and then gave the news, so they could then buy BTC pretty cheap.

    ​

    You know, these days people keep speaking of some wallets moving big amounts of coins to exchanges, so probably Goldman Sachs took the opportunity to sell at the same time and dump BTC hardly... We broke the ascending support for these shi..y whales. They are ruining this crypto world.

    ​

    Institutionalization of Bitcoin is just a very bad idea, for sure.

    This is the proof of manipulation.

    submitted by /u/asazot
    [link] [comments]

    They Call me Mr.HODL

    Posted: 06 Sep 2018 03:48 AM PDT

    When you learn to value things in terms of Bitcoin

    Posted: 05 Sep 2018 11:20 AM PDT

    At least I use more power than my entire neighbourhood combined

    Posted: 05 Sep 2018 02:53 PM PDT

    Even if it means losing everything

    Posted: 05 Sep 2018 11:21 PM PDT

    Why so much antipathy towards ShapeShit? They were main organizers of the hostile hard fork Segwit2X. We spent months fighting them to save Bitcoin: they were the #UASF #NO2X enemies. Never forget; & pathetic bootlickers (google Lavabit to see a hero)

    Posted: 05 Sep 2018 08:11 PM PDT

    55% Bitcoin Dominance. At some point the market is going to realize the network effects of Bitcoin are insurmountable obstacles to all other currencies.

    Posted: 05 Sep 2018 11:06 AM PDT

    Coingate is enabling #bitcoin lightning payments for all 4,000 of their merchants

    Posted: 05 Sep 2018 12:32 PM PDT

    Goldman Sachs, am I missing something here?

    Posted: 06 Sep 2018 12:17 AM PDT

    For background: In November BAKT will go live, there are 2 pro-ETF SEC commissioners now and the CBOE has an ETF application that will likely conclude around a similar time that BAKT goes live, if not relatively shortly after.

    Goldman Sachs had been planning to create a trading desk, but due to lack of regulatory oversight has decided to focus on providing an institutional service.

    Where from this does the market logically move down to this extent? Given the obvious run that will occur prior to BAKT going live and the obvious run that would occur from a positive ETF decision - what benefit is there is to manipulate the market down so aggressively?

    I'm not sure I'm feeling as pessimistic as I should be right now, because this seems too choreographed to allow accumulation from very well connected parties, ready for Novemer - where Goldman Sachs could simply re-announce plans to make a public trading desk. At the same time BAKT goes live, potentially at a similar time the SEC approves an ETF. No, I'm not really feeling pessimistic at all. People should be very cautious to tricks like this right now.

    submitted by /u/bitcoin19899
    [link] [comments]

    Shapeshift KYC - Worse than Useless: Financial Surveillance

    Posted: 05 Sep 2018 01:52 PM PDT

    How most BTC hodlers see today's crash

    Posted: 05 Sep 2018 10:48 PM PDT

    Bitcoin lost 5.7% in the last 24h. On average, every other coins in the top 10 lost 13%.

    Posted: 05 Sep 2018 04:56 PM PDT

    ��

    Posted: 05 Sep 2018 11:36 PM PDT

    This is why institutional investors should invest in BTC - Allocating 10% BTC to traditional stock/bond portfolio (and rebalance regularly) would have returned extra 103% since January 2014

    Posted: 06 Sep 2018 03:26 AM PDT

    Patience always gets rewarded one day

    Posted: 05 Sep 2018 08:40 AM PDT

    You Can Use Bitcoin to Buy a New Rolls-Royce in Houston

    Posted: 05 Sep 2018 01:08 PM PDT

    Blockchain.com Stole my Bitcoin.

    Posted: 05 Sep 2018 09:11 AM PDT

    Now before you devote this thread and pass on my story as if I made a newbie mistake. Hear me out.

    ​

    ​

    We are currently in the beta stages of developing a OTC exchange for the South African Bitcoin market. We decided on Blockchain.com's Receive API v2 as our method of generating new addresses to receive Bitcoins from users. The full documentation of this api can be found on their site https://www.blockchain.com/api/api_receive Kindly reference this documentation on my further statement.

    ​

    We applied for a API key and was provided one. We then used the documentation to implement the API and did so successfully using the parameters and guidelines of the documentation. The root of my issue came from something called the gap_limit. This parameter description is explained from the docs in the following manner

    ​

    'You can control this behavior by optionally passing `gap_limit` as an extra URL parameter. Please note, this will not increase the number of addresses that will be monitored by our servers. Passing the `gap_limit` parameter changes the maximum allowed gap before the API will stop generating new addresses. Using this feature will require you understand the gap limitation and how to handle it (for advanced users only)"

    ​

    Due to this statement we decided not to pass or edit the gap limit within our get requests for a new address. We did this because they state quote

    'As defined in BIP 44, wallet software will not scan past 20 unused addresses. Given enough requests from this API that don't have a matching payment, you could generate addresses past this horizon, which would make spending funds paid to those addresses quite difficult. For this reason, this API will return an error and refuse to generate new addresses if it detects it would create a gap of over 20 unused addresses. If you encounter this error, you will either need to switch to a new xPub (within the same wallet is fine), or receive a payment to one of the previous 20 created addresses'

    ​

    We assumed on our side ( our fault for doing this ) that if we don't edit the gap_limit it will default to 20 as their servers only scan up until a 20 gap_limit. However after implementation and beta testing with a small client base over time accumulated some unpaid addresses that added up to 20 unused addresses. Then a user created a order, despite the gap_limit being reached the api still returned a address, this address was the 21st address. 1 passed the gap limit. 0.83432528 BTC was sent to this address and no btc was allocated to my Blockchain.com wallet like in the passed with other orders that used addresses generated by my xPub and API key.

    ​

    After days of debugging and investigation the conclusion was made that in fact, the address was the 21st generated address therefore despite Blockchain.com's API saying it will return a error if exceeded, did not. To confirm this we then implemented the gap_limit and set it to 18. Followed by tests resulted in a error when exceeding the set gap_limit of unused addresses. Now we confirmed the issue and implemented a solution but our bitcoins were still in a address which belonged to me and had my bitcoins in but were unaccessible due to Blockchain.com's servers not scanning passed the 20 gap_limit. They appeared to be stuck.

    ​

    I went through the correct channels by opening numerous support tickets, all resulted in the same cycle of events. I open a ticket explaining what has happened, generic response, my further response goes ignored. This repeated over 4 tickets.

    ​

    Almost a month goes by and still despite my efforts of getting my BTC back I could only sit and watch the BTC dwindle away block by block. Till the 2018-08-31.

    ​

    A transaction on the address came about and it was a outgoing one to a much much larger address. To big to be any single person or even potential hackers address ( Yes we did consider this possibility during debugging and investigation and the conclusion was no tampering was found) This destination address appears to be that of one that would likely belong to Blockchain.com

    ​

    Have a look for yourself here is the address that was generated passed the gap_limit,

    https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1Ar23WEvzW8obJWZfgtvQ5Z43AVtCUXoTe

    ​

    The minor transactions made after the initial large ones were done during my efforts to get a call back response for the api to allocate my funds but those were unsuccessful. The end point of the Bitcoins landed here in this address

    ​

    https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1NDyJtNTjmwk5xPNhjgAMu4HDHigtobu1s

    ​

    My conclusion is aided by the following points in regards to my accusation that blockchain.com pocketed my mistake instead of assisting me in recovery which in their docs does claim to be challenging but as the bitcoins have moved was obviously achieved not for my sake but for theirs.

    ​

    -They ignored my support requests instead of Replying with constructive possible solutions or efforts to worth with me

    -Their twitter account ignored my tweets and went on to reply to others

    -My understanding and flow of the issues resulted in me writing off the BTC as a loss due to them not being able to recover it as it was passed their servers set bounders. But they accessed it and took it.

    -No explanation from Blockchain.com's side on what happened.

    ​

    ​

    Please guys help me get this message and my issue to the higher ups responsible for this or banter me into correction of what could have possibly happened in my case.

    submitted by /u/DoubleClickBTC
    [link] [comments]

    Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything - bcash

    Posted: 06 Sep 2018 04:04 AM PDT
    Read more
    at

    No comments:

    Post a Comment