Most people struggle with working out the level needed to explain things they know about to others.

If you overexplain, your reader will get bored; if you underexplain, your reader might be left frustrated or annoyed.

Most things crypto related are mostly learnt as and when the person comes across them or needs them (this isn't dissimilar to how information at higher levels is presented). I think it's something that's daunting to a lot of people though (but I'm not sure how would be best to fix something like that - hashing algorithms could be explained from breadth to depth with a lot of inbetweens - same goes for ecc and those two build up the security of the entire protocol/chain/coins).

I've seen people say in a lot of places that many bankruptcy proceedings are lucky to get 1% but I imagine ftx will be able to bail out/and hopefully try to give a higher percentage.


Let's hope this is all it is. I'm having visions of ftx trying to sell a new stablecoin like bitfinex did after some investors lost funds (and this could be a way to return funds back to the users in full - over time - but would be very costly for ftx, perhaps too costly unless there's something valuable they're hoping to acquire from voyager).


I doubt they'd get much negative press for pulling out though. It's not their company that went bankrupt, it's another they're trying to patch up.

They'll get investors angry with them for not offering something high enough or competitive enough which might be something they'd listen to and try to improve their image by fixing the issue but I don't think it's their burden they're taking on here.

Stablecoins can't be run off bitcoins chain now though, they can be run off ethereum and similar chains to it though.

If a stable gets a higher market cap than bitcoin, whatever network it's being run off/mostly stored on will probably be as valuable or more than the stablecoin.

Ethereum is probably similar to bitcoin in terms of most things up to now except fees (which have been really high and those are still being paid by its users).

Bonds doing badly looks generally weird and problematic. It might be due to investors being threatened by countries having more incentives for things like war declarations or for the fact that the 2020 stock market crash saw stocks falling to January 2020 price levels in March (you got no discount for waiting a bit on the sidelines).

---

A price falls due to a weak order book (in most cases it's supply and demand only and free cash flows/assets have nothing to do with it).

ETF managers often have discretion to lend out the fund to let people leverage with it too (either for or against) - I'm not sure whether this interest is held by the fund management or redistributed to the fund holders though.

256 byte keys are big afaik, rsa is secure at 2000+ bytes (and are theoretically cinsidered that secure for 10 years).

Have you opened this site in the console bit? I used to get warnings on Firefox if sites used sha1 for some things but there's a difference with using sha1 for the encryption algorithm/ie cryptographically signing things and signing sha1 documents with your private key and using it for generating a checksum.

MD4 can be used in some circumstances for checksums too. It might be faster for larger inputs and hard to bruteforce (if you have to include authentic data) - I'd prefer more checksums than fewer.

If someone wanted to launch an attack on bitcointalk, they wouldn't be able to attack much afaik especially for logged in users but I'm not sure if entropy bytes are signed too for pages that are publicly accessible (like the login page). If server time or something is also signed then an attack on those would be impossible.

Edit: thinking about it, there are time errors you can get when connecting to sites using https so it's likely impossible to believably bruteforce.

I haven't seen this happen on betting sites before but I don't know if this would make you reflect too much on the bet you placed and too little/much less on the game.

If casinos change odds or offer a cash out early, it's probably because it benefits them to offer that (and not you). They either benefit by making you wager more money with a smaller payout or by making your regret withdrawing early (and perhaps making you bet higher on your next bet because of it.

This is how most custodians of any assets make their money - they lend out your assets to others.

It's not limited to banking as it's done by most stock exchanges and billions too.

---

The tanks are probably more unique to China but a lot of countries have militarised police.

Do we know how much of a proportion they're expecting to be paid or is that figure being kept secret/finalised.

It's probably an advertising ploy of more of a "putting our name in the media", they'll probably have got the people they bailed out investing in them without putting an ad on the liquidity redemption page though too (and extra customers).

I did think this before but people could go to university and be well versed in their subject before they start (there's no quick jump to masters course if people want academic accolades and universities can act as an easy way to gain contacts with people in their field).

No exchanges pump and dump coins unless they're a scam exchange.

I think you're just looking to gamble and that's potentially hard to do on exchanges (especially for making a good profit - though the term "gamble" implies you won't make a good profit).

Anyone who claims they can get a coin to pump and posts it (as used to happen in the past) has often already used a group and strategy to pump a coin and is trying to draw attention to it so the order book is able to absorb their sells - the price doesn't normally go higher and sometimes is controlled not to.

I'd be careful about trying to find this. I made a post after the first peak saying it was a profitible strategy to sell new aths (admittedly I didn't really do it myself - just opened a few low risk-lev shorts when the trend started to change after an ath - because I don't know when to buy back).

Did you mean "consent of the citizens here? What does that mean?


I think China's initial ban seemed more of a way to get people to invest locally (especially when the economy started to drop/plateau).

But yes bitcoin savings stored with your own private keys are very immutable and as safe as your key and only your key.

The chances of that happening are about 97556:1 - anything below about 2000:1 would be something I'd consider could happen so if you have generated 50+ addresses then it'd be likely to happen.

It's not uncommon anyway, I've had this before with an address I generated on a wallet.

If we couple that with the last two aths being made at times around when stimulus/furlough was being given out too (in 2021) then I'd say we're not doing great atm for making a new peak (although property prices might have to crash soon - even though stock market crashes aren't really crashes because no one knows what else to invest in so the money floods back into the same places after a while).

Looks like a good pr boost for them.maybe since the first thing I can find about them is articles relating to them stating they'll introduce bitcoin (unless they don't need a high profile anyway)...

Bitcoin's the prototype for a blockchain based digital currency.

Most prototypes aren't thrown out but are used to develop things on and add things to. That's why bitcoin is the most valued cryptocurrency and why it's also one of the most secure and most trusted (it might still be trying to prove itself to some too).

There's a chance an altcoin might overtake bitcoin (again) but there's no reason things implemented on other chains can't be added to bitcoins.

The last time ether rose strongly against bitcoin was in 2021 I don't think it's done much against it since then (other than taking a bit of a tumble against it more recently).

(of course it's hard to know which has the highest initial momentum in changing where the market might go).

Yup I thought I'd seen that before but couldn't work out where. I'm surprised it:s not done in all other wallets as it's a reasonably easy implementation (and might just be based off calling the same but slightly different method each of the three times).

I know multisig compatibility has been stated on here before that devs would look to find a way that means different signatories can be used if necessary (ie there needs to be a way a signature can be removed from a raw transaction) if that's the same for signatures then it'll make things a bit harder.

(the topic that came from was a discussion on taproot, I'm not sure I've done what was said justice but it was a discussion on combining signatures to mean you'd run a verification algorithm over 1 signatur but with n private keys having signed the same hash/message).

I'd assumed binance makes most of its money from futures, margin and other gimmicks it can sell to regular investors/traders - it could always find other ways to absorb fees too.

---

I think binance has better incentives to get users to keep funds on their exchange too though. They offer interest on btc held there and also make things fairly easy to find too (coinbase is really bad at that). It's really sold as the exchange to quickly deposit->trade->withdraw with and not much else seems to happen there.

That sounds like a big budget for something like that though - I don't think it'd cost that much to actually produce a decentralised social media platform (even one for video sharing).

I think there also is and has been a lot of such applications and a lot of competition (but nothings arisen as a frontrunner/popular choice yet - I'm assuming this could be due to compatibility problems).