If risk assets were performing well/in correlation with bitcoin then they'll probably be correlating for longer.

I'm not sure there's much fundamentally backing the growth increases though (except attempting to protect wealth maybe). So I don't think anyone would be reasonable to be short term bullish until we get past a resistence like the one at $28-30k.

Can you not access the service via a website from your pc? This seems to me like the best way to go about this if you're having problems uploading documents from your phone.

Alternatively, you can normally email support your documents and they'll authenticate you on the system and do the kyc step for you.

The original release of bitcoin core had a pay to IP function. Satoshi themselves removed it afaik because nodes don't use encrypted connections so it was susceptible to a man in the middle attack (someone altering the data being sent).

This vulnerability would still exist imo and would have to be thought through. The lightning network has an identification string at the front of it for this though afaik.

The DNS seeds are used for initial detection only, your node then grows its peers.dat from them and can connect to other nodes via that (the seed nodes are just the initial connection to the network).

It's only a few packets/kb of data at most being transferred so I don't think any other nodes are needed to help with this (if it becomes more intense/or has, seed nodes don't need the blockchain to forward the user a list of their peers).

Peers that don't use the default port are able to connect to the network. Peers that do may be added to the seed because then you don't have to store the port along with the seed (and if you're using a different port, what's the chance it changes - probably high).

I just checked on the coinbase chart from tradingview and it fell to be worth 94-95 cents for a while in May (not sure how long, it's just a low it reached).

I think that's interesting though because it's decent interest for those who think it'll go back to its peg (or those who might know it's collateralised to profit off volatility).

I've seen wbtc-btc pair in the past do some interesting moves up and down quite a bit too (especially historically). These are both normally caused by increased volatility in the market just having an affect as exchanges don't arbitrage much.

Most companies have debt to assets of around 70% too so that makes sense as a figure - it could be a problem if btc falls to much but given the earnings anyway it's probably not much to worry about as they have other assets/services too.

I think net income is normally used instead of gross profit to work out how much a company has made (based off gross profit, their margins look high though - as if they're quite far in profit - net income includes other things like taxes though I'm not sure of its name on US balance sheets as it might be different).

I think it's a case that they're actually being bought per share for less than bitcoin at the moment. There's a few reasons for this: the main one is it looks like it's the main part of their business, their revenue is about $500mln and their profits aren't great (they're profitible too unlike most tech stocks - this may make them less attractive). There's also news of them holding leveraged longs on bitcoin (with low leverage) but holding a leveraged position is still riskier than not.

On this point, the "other games section" seems quite big as well as the lack of indication as to what happens if multiple tags are put on a stream or if the streamer changes game part way through.


It normally has the highest edge too (favouring the casino) as well as being fairly fast paced and needing fewer resources to run (especially compared with things like live tables).

Russia may be making decisions from what it seems forced into doing though and mentioning things like this might make them more likely to pull out (on a general stance).

It's nice if politics can stay out of science for as long as possible too as it has little place there. The advancement of research/missions isn't worth hindering - I don't think it benefits anyone doing that.

It's mostly the people tend to follow others and take influence from the price of their investments.

When the price goes up, a lot of people buy more bitcoin and fomo into their holdings.
When the price stabilises, people get nervous or bored of their investment and start to sell - then others decide their investment is losing money and try to sell too and the price falls because not many people buy drops (unless they have an order places already) as its safer to buy when the price has stabilised again.

There's probably an issue in relying on people to answer honestly (and know) whether they've actually made money on it or not.

I guess a lot of them with higher profit chances probably bet on fewer games (maybe just a final/semi) while those with a higher majority making a loss would be more likely to bet on more games (some might also watch matches and factor a bet into their ticket cost).

You get better odds if you bet against your own country too (that's probably why France and the UK are high ).

I'm assuming this ramble had no purpose to do anything useful so I've just quoted what I think is odd.


Does anyone use more than 8 hours of electricity? I can't think of anything really needing that much that doesn't have a battery inside it (you can charge a phone from a car pretty sustainably afaik too).

Maybe these holders are not buying coins just to sell them at a loss a bit later on...

I think a lot of buyers at areas like $30k were buying for the fundamentals or dcaing anyway (and all other drops/psychological price levels).

There was probably a lot of buying around $30k and a lot of immediate selling though too from people who got too nervous about holding bitcoin through a loss (perhaps weak hands or people who knew there was a good chance they could buy lower).

Not with nodes no. Nodes are designed to sync to a chain that has the highest height (number of blocks) and highest difficulty.

---

This could be possible to do with miners (known as a 51% attack) but:
1. No ones voting in favour of losing money, they'd just switch chains/become incompatible with the "corrupted one".
2. It becomes exponentially more difficult to remove blocks further down the chain - an attack probably wouldn't bother or wouldn't get far.
3. The country that invested into this would lose money potentially by making their mining equipment worthless if the coin changes algorithm (especially if another government(s) that is against the original attacker can quickly roll out new chips/miners to prove a point).

They're not the shadiest - there's so much worse.

Brave/bat recently made an online video calling app that was free for up to 4 users. Tbf I also expected video calling on Skype to be peer to peer (where possible) but it might not be.

If bitfinex charge for things on their calling service like using filters/background or other features then it'll probably seem more "reasonable" for them to offer it for free to users - either that or they're hoping to advertise themselves by providing this as a service showcasing the power of decentralisation and how it can be used effectively for one of the most data intensive things you can do.

You'd be better off using data for both at the same time. Expecting crypto exchange revenues not to grow by more than 4x by 2027 is probably an underestimate (even if their incomes are a bit sporadic afaik).

I'd imagine the post would include and could be reported for plagiarism (especially if it's done near the start of the thread).

Mods are normally fairly happy to remove posts that don't add value to a topic or mention something new/different (that could count as plagiarism - in this case they might be copying from someone else but rephrasing entirely what was said so the two don't look identical).

It's similar terms for similar things coming from different places.

In network topology graph theory is often used to explain things and a lot of the time "nodes" are used like interchangeable or identical servers. In lots of places they're less specific than servers but are normally used for increasing bandwidth and information relay speeds and times.

Servers deliver information to a user's machine and can often take in information from a user's device too - like with cookies.

One of the main difference I'd suggest is that when sending information to nodes on a bitcoin network you don't need to worry as much about maintaining a "session" like you would sometimes if connecting to a server, you also might broadcast a transaction to multiple nodes (and that doesn't cause a problem on either end - which it may do with a server).

I'd say most architecture is morphing from using servers to nodes though so the two might become even more interchangeable (think downloading a game, you normally connect to multiple nodes at once to allow for faster download speeds).

Perhaps just mentioning it when inflation is high makes people/companies reconsider whether to keep spending or not too...

If inflation is intended to be reduced or money supply, it'll mean the fiat people are holding will start to become more valuable again anyway - so why spend now if there's a chance something will be done about it.

This is probably just extra news the companies are able to sell to force a bit of panic in the markets perhaps or just get their ad revenue from people being concerned about it.

International cooperation to reduce a cross border virus is necessary to stop it spreading - regardless of it's spreading speed. The WHO probably declared this for things like norovirus too around 8 years ago - they might've done it with measles and mumps in 2019 too.