Remember this link if private equity companies start laying off their employees, or start collapsing on their own weight, https://www.ft.com/content/be9e095f-71b8-402f-a404-1172d6df1fb7Because from the way I understood it, some of them have started to borrow capital AGAINST their portfolio to lend to the companies that are IN their portfolio. Nested leverage investing.  |
|
|
|
OP, "a demo in disguise"? I believe not. You said you and your friend won $15.00 from free spins. That's actually not very bad! You can't actually expect to win hundreds or thousands from free spins unless they're for slot-machines with progressive jackpots, no?
I won multiple times more than a 100$ on free spin from Livecasino free spin bonus on our signature campaign. I remember winning same amount on Winz.io free spin and Bitcasino. 100$ and above is possible to win free spin depending on the max multiplier and the bet amount of the free spin. There’s a wagering requirements on free spin rewards so I doubt that casino will provide capped on winning possibilities since most of the free spin offer by other casino requires deposit for wagering since the free spin reward is lock. Just saying that free spin is not different on normal in terms of max profit potential. I'm sure it's possible, if you're lucky. I won $25.00 from "Diggy's Hole" before when BlackJack.fun had their promos and daily/weekly voting tournaments, and I consider that a good win from mere free spins. But what I was telling OP was we won't win a very large jackpot unless the slot-machine had a progressive jackpot that adds more to the vault as more and more money goes into it. Weren't you a regular BlackJack.fun player before? I believe you're the one who's good at BlackJack.  |
|
|
|
So, going back to the topic: Can tail supply be a soft fork? Yes, it definitely can. And if you use LN, then it can even be a no-fork, exactly in the same way as millisatoshis are. Because it is perfectly valid to form a network similar to LN, where instead of adding additional precision, you can print additional coins, and turn 21 million coins limit into 21 billion coins limit.
But, as you covered at the start of your post, they won't really exist. Just as with 999 millisat, they only exist as long as we're in lightning. The moment you want to withdraw 1999 millisat, 999 millisat are rounded down to zero. Don't the millisats go to the channel peer? Therefore the channel closer gets his sats rounded down, and the peer gets his sats rounded up in the Bitcoin blockchain?
It might work, but the sub-network will look like a fractional reserve system, where 1 BTC will be inflated as long as it stays in that sub-network, and the participants must remain in that network and not withdraw to main layer.
But there was nothing inflated by implementing millisats. 1 BTC still equals to 1 BTC in Lightning because it merely added decimal places going down. Adding decimal places won't make 1 BTC = 1.000000000001 BTC, no? Or am I wrong in my understanding how Lightning works? |
|
|
|
Kruw, a hypothetical question. If I send some UTXOs I received from a DarkNet user straight to zkSNACKS' coordinator, would the blockchain analysis company that you're working with flag and block those UTXOs with 100% accuracy, or are there false negatives going through in there? What's zkSNACKS' track record on detecting true positives? |
|
|
|
Plus what's the problem with millisats?
The main problem is that they disappear, when you want to go on-chain. So, if you have a lot of users, and everyone owns 999 millisatoshis, then those coins can exist only in LN, and then you cannot go on-chain without losing them. But as I said, we are still far away from that. But because satoshi is the smallest unit that matters on-chain, you have for example default fees of 1000 millisatoshis, and many amounts don't use those additional decimal places, because they are lost when going on-chain, so people don't want to end up with any non-zero amounts on those last three digits, because if you have a lot of them, then those coins are effectively worthless outside LN. But it doesn't merely disappear into thin air, no? I believe someone in BitcoinTalk said the millisats go to the channel peer when a user closes the channel, and the peer's coins are rounded up to the nearest Satoshi when they settle in the Bitcoin blockchain. That shouldn't actually count as a "new consensus rule", no?
Why not? This example can clearly show you, that even if some feature is not supported on-chain at all, you can still introduce it on some second layer, and leave it there. And this approach has its good and bad sides. The good news is that you can experiment, and introduce for example mining inside LN, and receive even single millisatoshis for the work done by your CPU through merged-mining. The bad news is that if something is not enforced on-chain, it is not fully used, as long as this support is missing. And then, technically you can have working millisatoshis, but practically everyone still count things in satoshis, and make sure to clear all additional features, just to be compatible with the first layer. OK, I understand your viewpoint. But technically onchain where it truly matters and where the consensus rules are enforced, there are no rule changes.
So, going back to the topic: Can tail supply be a soft fork? Yes, it definitely can. And if you use LN, then it can even be a no-fork, exactly in the same way as millisatoshis are. Because it is perfectly valid to form a network similar to LN, where instead of adding additional precision, you can print additional coins, and turn 21 million coins limit into 21 billion coins limit. Of course, the market will react accordingly, but technically you can make some LN-like network with tail supply, and test how many people will support it. And you can adjust the numbers to make it better than 1000x supply increase.
There's no "tail supply" when the accounting adds millisats in Lightning. Everything still adds to 21,000,000 Bitcoins. IE it still adds to one pizza even though the slices are made smaller. Nothing was printed from thin air. |
|
|
|
|
Good suggestion, dimonstration. I was a regular player in BlackJack.fun too, I also want to request for the criteria as well if it's OK, thanks.
Plus those chosen as "whitelisted" players, have they already passed KYC/AML, or has BlackJack.fun chosen those users even if they didn't go through KYC yet?
|
|
|
|
The "check in Core code"? What does that mean? I guess it means the code of the full node being aware of the internal state of any LN channel, to properly detect, if some closing channel transaction is the last one or not. But as I said, if this is the case, then we don't need it, and it should never be introduced. "New consensus" where? No consensus rule was broken nor changed.
Technically, millisatoshis can be marked as "new consensus rule", because they don't have any on-chain representation. However, when we will get to the point, when on-chain millisatoshis will be needed, then we can introduce them as a soft-fork. But yes, today they don't have any on-chain representation. But millisats are off-chain and doesn't break any of the consensus rules of the Bitcoin network. That shouldn't actually count as a "new consensus rule", no? The developers found a work around to go more than eight decimal points, off-chain, but when the channels are closed and the coins are settled in the blockchain, that's what truly matters. Plus what's the problem with millisats? |
|
|
|
It's laughable that the people I talk to that remain in denial of the high-probability of Stagflation that's going to happen in many regions around the world.
In Europe, Christine Lagarde raised interest rates again, it's the tenth hike and she won't truly confirm when she'll stop. That will slow down most European economies. But in other parts of the world, China's Stimulus and the supply cuts for Crude Oil will cause higher fuel prices and therefore more inflation.
Stagflation will not merely be a narrative.
This. Interest rates affect many Europeans's family budgets in a negative fashion. Frankly, I'm confused how rising interest rates can fight inflation? Because inflation has always been a monetary phenomenon, caused by money printing and too much government spending. When there's inflation, it's a symptom that there's too much supply of money in circulation. What the Central Bank does to control it is to tighten monetary policy.
People pay more for their mortgage so they need to earn more, charge more for their work or service and voila: we get more inflation! Fuel prices are soaring too, accelerating the inflation even more. Additionally, there are rumors of the next Covid wave coming soon... so hold on to your butts, gentlemen!
It's either the Central Bank tightens aggressively to cause the recession themselves, or inflation will cause one for the Central Bank. And it's better if the Central Bank causes one early while the people still have their savings. Plus because inflation will eat up people's savings sooner or later, and when this happens, the economy will slow down, BUT inflation will still be high = Stagflation. |
|
|
|
I can't see how it's possible. Node which follow current Bitcoin protocol/consensus would treat block with reward higher than expected as invalid block. I believe someone else can show code of Bitcoin Core (or other full node software) which check whether total of newly mined Bitcoin on a block doesn't exceed current block reward. As I said I am not talking of main Emmision, that would cause a hard fork. But you put BTC from one adress to another against UTXO consensus with LN. And Sidechains etc will put their BTC also on a special adress without any UTXO proof of main chainConfused what you're trying to make everyone believe by making everyone reading that. Don't the coins sent to "special addresses" like Lightning Channels require at least one confirmation in the Bitcoin blockchain? Where is the check in core code where the closed channel TX come from? There is none, because the core dont know the input TX. The "check in Core code"? What does that mean? You open a Lightning Channel it requires an onchain transaction, then you close the channel and it requires another onchain transaction.
its only new consensus how it is technically working
"New consensus" where? No consensus rule was broken nor changed. |
|
|
|
China still holds about $800 billion of U.S. Treasuries, and with the U.S. Dollar's value starting to go up because of the Federal Reserve's tightening/short supply of U.S. Dollars, those Dollars will look very attractive for China and make them dump more U.S. Treasuries, or simply dump them because they will be needing those foreign reserves for their collapsing economy. But in what currency will they get paid for selling U.S. debt? - U.S. Dollars from the money printer. They will be a holder of U.S. Dollars. The great reset.
You are forgetting that when you bag-hold the US treasuries you are in reality lending money to the US government to cover the budget deficit and the ginormous expenses; which means the US government has to pay you interest on the bonds you are bag holding. With the heavily increased interest rate, bag holding these bonds means you get more interest (more money) which US prints out of thin air like a Ponzi Scheme. This is also why all the money from all the other markets (including bitcoin) is being sucked up by US government. So on one hand China wants to get that profit by being a bag holder (so they bag hold $800 billion) and at the same time they want to get rid of it to reduce their risk (so they dump $200 billion out of the initial $1000 billion they held). This is also why they got rid of a large amount of their dollar reserves by converting it to both gold and yuan. I'm going to DYOR on what's currently going on, BUT China is definitely NOT "getting rid" of a large portion of their Dollar reserves because they want to do it, it's because they need to it. The Chinese Yuan's value against the U.S. Dollar has been falling in the FOREX market. The countries holding Yuan are selling them, and the People's Bank Of China needs to be the net-buyer to defend it. |
|
|
|
I can't see how it's possible. Node which follow current Bitcoin protocol/consensus would treat block with reward higher than expected as invalid block. I believe someone else can show code of Bitcoin Core (or other full node software) which check whether total of newly mined Bitcoin on a block doesn't exceed current block reward. As I said I am not talking of main Emmision, that would cause a hard fork. But you put BTC from one adress to another against UTXO consensus with LN. And Sidechains etc will put their BTC also on a special adress without any UTXO proof of main chainConfused what you're trying to make everyone believe by making everyone reading that. Don't the coins sent to "special addresses" like Lightning Channels require at least one confirmation in the Bitcoin blockchain? |
|
|
|
|
OP, "a demo in disguise"? I believe not. You said you and your friend won $15.00 from free spins. That's actually not very bad! You can't actually expect to win hundreds or thousands from free spins unless they're for slot-machines with progressive jackpots, no?
Plus DYOR on a user's edge in slot-machines. Because you don't, and the fact that you won $15.00, you're lucky. Many slot-machine players will lose $15.00. Haha.
|
|
|
|
$5m I see as something ironic, it would in the majority represent failure. Hopefully not of BTC itself but somehow a price rising that far within our life times at least, thats too rapid and somewhere something big went wrong. Presumably there contains a scenario in dollar or euros or Yen or their system of sovereign debt (China?) had failed at that point, this isn't fantastical it can happen but we should not hope for it.
Although it's exaggeration, a "very high" market value for Bitcoin doesn't need to have an economic/financial collapse for that to actually become true. Can't it merely start having actual demand as a Store of Value, for censorship-resistance, or probably for international trade? It has to be if it has existed for more than ten years, and if it's to exist for another ten or more. |
|
|
|
But if a "tainted" UTXO passed through, then it's merely an illustration that the blockchain analysis company should set up more filters. You don't get it yet. Taint can be defined by any entity. I can right as well say that coinbase rewards are tainted. If I make the disclaimer that I will provide absolutely no evidence for my claim, then you can't disprove it, no matter how many chain analysis companies argue it is or isn't tainted. Read the whole post. I'm making the same illustration like you. If the blockchain analysis companies find a positive = it validates the blockchain analytics' "effectiveness". BUT if they make a false negative = they could merely say they need to set up more filters. They may have put themselves in an idisputable position. - There should be an analysis company that scans the analysis of the blockchain analysis companies. |
|
|
|
No surprise that anyone can make any prediction about Bitcoin. In Michael Saylor's prediction he may not specify a time frame so he has no idea when Bitcoin might reach that point. Analyzing Bitcoin from its previous position to its present state, it has grown significantly. If Michael Saylor were to make a prediction from now to the next 12 years, it wouldn't seem unreasonable for Bitcoin to hit 5 million. Although there is no fixed supply of gold, considering that the price of gold has increased significantly, it certainly deserves to be 1 million to 5 million due to the limited supply of Bitcoin. But for now, in 1-2 years, I am ready to see bitcoin price at max $100k price.
Plus many people never truly got the context of why he made such a "laughable" prediction. Michael Saylor believed that Bitcoin has the potential to surge to a total market value of $200 trillion to $300 trillion, which if in the right set of environment, it's definitely possible. He also believed that Bitcoin will continue to outperform FAANG stocks, Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix, and Google. That has always been true in each bull cycle because of higher volatility. The next cycle will not be different. |
|
|
|
Whether it is fake news or legit doesn't make any difference because it is a random statement by a "random" person not a prediction or even a half decent speculation. Everyone knows that bitcoin price will go on and will surpass a million eventually specially as fiat keeps dumping but the real question that nobody can answer is when.
And the funny thing of all of this is that if you are an investor there is no point at all on worrying about when such a price could be reached, what matters is your ability to hold your coins under difficult circumstances and nothing more, as in that way even if bitcoin were to reach such a price on a decade you will still be able to take advantage of such a movement, the only ones that need to care about when such a price can be reached are those that trade the markets as they may not be able to take an early position to take advantage of that movement due to the inherent nature of trading. But sers, the prediction wasn't made by another "random person". It was made by a person who HODLs one of the largest investments of Bitcoin in his company's vaults. Chad Saylor's statement has to have more significance than just being merely another "random statement". The projected price might be exaggerated, but he's probably not wrong that we're not "to the moon" yet. |
|
|
|
I like to think about the non-steady income in a couple of parts.
The first part is just figuring out what is your worst-case scenarios, what are your best case scenarios and what is your average... So then with that information you can try to project ahead, and most likely mostly using some combination of the worst-case scenarios and the average in order to figure out how much money you need to keep in your emergency fund in order to cover those situations in which the worst-case scenarios ended up playing out rather than the average case scenarios.
So, even though not necessarily likely worst-case scenarios could end up playing out for 6-12 months or more, and so the emergency cash fund should be able to cover the gap between what you need to live and what kind of income is coming in. Hopefully, you are already spending (your monthly expenses) somewhere less than your average case scenario which should then cause for an ability to invest (or DCA) with part of the amount that you are living below your average case scenario. and sure if the worse case scenario persists for a long time, you may well end up needing to either reduce or eliminate your DCA purchases of bitcoin, but if you have planned in advance you should not necessarily need to stop your DCA, and for sure, you do not want to end up putting yourself in a position in which you end up having to sell any of your BTC during periods in which worse case scenarios are playing out.. which likely would mean that you had not sufficiently prepared in terms of your emergency fund and/or the ways that you had been choosing to live in order to make sure that you are generally living below the amount of your average case scenarios rather than spending more than that.
Thank you for adding further clarification to this; I consider this information very helpful and I know other people do too. A lot of people in this forum might actually fall into this category of unsteady cashflow and this information will be very helpful for those who will be able to digest and implement it. From your explanation, it is obvious that a simple averaging of upper and lower limits might not be as efficient as keeping in mind the worst-case situation. As student, it is easy getting $10 per week for low income country oike mine but sometimes it gets as high as $50. For a student in this situation that want to start investing in Bitcoin, a DCA of $10 per week will be more feasible Good for you ser. You're still a student, single, AND YOUNG. I'm confident that the start of your Bitcoin journey EARLY in your life will give you a better probability of building a good portfolio by the time of your retirement. You are currently front-running BlackRock, and the other asset managers, if they haven't bought any Bitcoin yet. Keep working, keep learning. Furthermore, percentage change of the money supply in the United States from one year ago. It's down by -3.7%. That's another deflationary month since December, 2022. This might cause an economic crash in that region that could be a contagion for other regions. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?graph_id=248494#0Perhaps it's good to use half of what you're regularly using for DCA, and save it for a DIP? |
|
|
|
1. Who is a crypto trader?
OP, are you asking who are the actual traders in BitcoinTalk who truly do it professionally? I believe none, they don't go here in the forum.
2. Do you only trade Bitcoin or you trade Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies?
Personally traded shitcoins before, currently HODLing Bitcoin, but I MIGHT trade shitcoins again if it's an opportunity to increase Bitcoin.
3. How many trading strategies do you use and which is your favorite?
Buy the DIP and HODL, if you can call it a "strategy"? Let's merely call it priced-based entry, time-based exit.
4. As a crypto trader, do you focus on technical analysis only, fundamental analysis only or you rely on a combination of both to informed trading decisions?
I don't know. Haha. I use Luck Analysis.
5. As a crypto trader what is your favorite crypto exchange you use for trading?
As a pleb, no favorite, everyone is asking for KYC. What's your favorite?
6. Are there other ways you trade crypto without using an exchange ?
"Without an exchange" for actual trading? That would be a miracle, OR a service with high asking fees. |
|
|
|
That's a laughable move from their policy makers in Australia because it won't stop the people from losing billions more in illegal gambling. People won't stop gambling, but they're killing an industry for legal gambling.
Yep, that's true, they are killing the legal gambling in Australia for sure, and I think it might create a entirety of illegal bookies don't you think? Plus if it's going to expand an illegal gambling cartel's financial capabilities, the money could find its way back to the policy-makers and cartels could expand their political power as well. They could also buy more guns, launder more money, making those illegal businesses grow too.
But on the other hand, the land based casinos might benefited here in the long run if the government tries to kill the online gambling business with this policies.
That's probably who's lobbying for the move. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
