Laughable. Obviously it's going to be a game of hot-potato. What country would truly be willing to hold the Rupee as a foreign reserve when it isn't really as useful as the U.S. Dollar in international trade? What CAN Saudi Arabia do with the Rupees it accepted? It's currently losing value against the Dollar.
Few refuse to understand that there are simply too many nations/states that are depending on the Dollar to succeed, including India and Saudi Arabia.
You are absolutely right. Let's illustrate it in images.  To dethrone the dollar, those who are trying to dethrone it would have to have a currency that is less bad than the dollar, and it does not appear that the Indian rupee or any of the currencies of the countries that are trying to dethrone it are. The rate hikes, the tightening, and the restriction of swap lines are all causing a shortage of Dollars. If you check the current rate of growth of the Dollar, it's currently deflationary. What happens when there's a shortage of "a thing" that's currently in demand? Its value goes up. That's precisely what we are seeing in that chart. This recent development should be troubling to the US but they are dismissing it as if nothing is happening. It is getting to a very critical point when they will lose total control. But even now I wonder what is it they can do. India and the UAE are both members of the BRICS. The process has started of replacing the dollar as the world reserve currency to multiple currencies.
Lol. How dumb are you? It's pretty damn evident that you have issues with the USA which is why you are stating such nonsensical stuff. Process of replacing the dollar? Extremely silly statement. The dollar is actually growing stronger with time while the rupee is growing weaker. Think hard! All fiat currencies weaken over time, some faster, some slower. If the rate of weakening of the fiat currency is not too fast, it is quite suitable for settlements for exported goods on one simple condition - if you intend to import goods or services for an equivalent amount. This is how bilateral currency swaps in national currencies work, which are practiced between BRICS member countries. The exchange rates of national currencies are temporarily frozen and a bilateral transaction takes place. If there is no significant imbalance in the trade balance between countries, then everything goes smoothly even without the participation of the dollar. I will explain with an example. Let's say India wants to buy a million barrels of oil from the UAE and pay for them in Indian rupees. UAE Indian rupees are not particularly needed because it is not a freely convertible currency. But India can offer goods or services for an equivalent amount in return. In fact, the transaction turns into a barter one, where fiat currencies are involved only for the convenience of mutual settlements, but are not used as a store of value. In particular, India can offer in return some medicines or outsourced programming services or something else. That's actually going to be a very problematic situation for Saudi Arabia, if not a laughable one. Rupees used like mere tokens in an amusement park. It would have been better if the BRICS nations agreed to use an apolitical, impartial, decentralized network/currency for their international trade needs. If only there was something like it invented, no? |
|
|
|
Which doesn't make it "OK", right? Not your keys, not your coins. The exchange, being a centralized entity, could decide not to give anyone their Bitcoins back, AND users will be depending on their network for the safety and security of our property, like PayPal users. Therefore the question, how much of the total supply must be held in centralized vaults, under their control, before we can actually say that Bitcoin is failing? What is the threshold?
I'm like a broken record, asking this challenging question over and over again because all of the debates/discussions presented are mere unintentional-strawmen that's taking the topic out of context.
I'd argue it's not about the supply at all. Based on the premise Bitcoin was designed with the intent of there being one sender and one recipient, with no middlemen in between; In order to still qualify as a peer-to-peer network, then there simply needs to be at least two individual users transacting who retain control over their own funds. OK, then from that premise, if User A owned and locked 99% of the total supply, with new participants having to ask permission from him/her to use the currency, then could we say that it has failed or not? The answer is obvious.
It's a threshold I'm quite certain we'll never reach.
But what is the threshold? Where should the network participants draw the limit? I'm merely asking out of curiousity. |
|
|
|
In your opinion, are we still very early in our Bitcoin journey?
No, just the creators of software for Ordinals didn't care about implementing ownership properly. All they did, was just "Bitcoin as a cloud storage". Didn't care, cloud storage? But aren't all sats in your wallet, which can only be moved if you control the keys, already represent actual ownership of the "property".
They made a lot of mistakes, for example skipped testnet3 entirely (or any other test network). We are not "early", there were protocols that enforced ownership, just Ordinals is not one of them, because it was not the main goal, it was a side effect.
My personal opinon. If there's anything to like about Ordinals "as a project", it's because they didn't ask for permission to start building. They just built it, just like how the Lightning Network developers built their network. Are we just starting to scratch the surface? Not really, because people still don't know, how many things are possible. And we can still enjoy quite empty mempool, compared to what it could be if more people would know about it. That's precisely why we might just be scratching the surface. Developers nor users still hasn't seen Bitcoin's "final form". Or there might not be a "final form", it might evolve continuously. Although some parts of the network might have ossified. |
|
|
|
I always assumed the majority of Bitcoin "owners" currently holds their Bitcoin on an exchange. If they move from largely unregulated companies registered in the Cayman Islands to regulated brokers in their own country, I consider that an improvement.
Which doesn't make it "OK", right? Not your keys, not your coins. The exchange, being a centralized entity, could decide not to give anyone their Bitcoins back, AND users will be depending on their network for the safety and security of our property, like PayPal users. Therefore the question, how much of the total supply must be held in centralized vaults, under their control, before we can actually say that Bitcoin is failing? What is the threshold? I'm like a broken record, asking this challenging question over and over again because all of the debates/discussions presented are mere unintentional-strawmen that's taking the topic out of context. |
|
|
|
Where did you get that information from? BlackRock is only exposed to BTC as a shareholder of Microstrategy, and why would they buy BTC if their spot BTC ETF has not been approved yet?
because they need to have reserves to prove they can open up a ETF market they need to have the reserves to even be able to offer baskets of shares that represent the coins they cant sell unbacked shares to then buy coins they do not yet have.. as thats against the purpose of a ETF its why the winkle twins(gemini) grabbed loads of coins before filing a ETF many many years ago. its why grayscale did too and when their clients express interest in such an investment. But let's say you are right, is there some amount of BTC for the purpose of proving that they as a company are ready to offer such an ETF? Tin-foil hat conspiracy theory.  Because BlackRock probably knows that they already have the approval as good as secured, then why not slowly start accumulating some coins for their personal wallets. It's also the same with some of those nefarious people behind the SEC too, why not? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ We already know they're not trustworthy, no? |
|
|
|
This person lost his entire Ordinals collection but he's "tracking" them. Well friends, I find myself broken this morning, as my entire ordinal collection has been sent to a miner as part of a tx fee 😔 What happened: yesterday, I used @xverseApp's BTC recovery feature to pull out some sats that had accumulated there (not much at all even). As soon as I submit the tx, wallet goes to 0, the entirety of my ordinal collection sent as part of the tx fee to the miner AntPool...including a few @sub_100k's I inscribed myself back in the early days, my @satsnames (trygg.sats) and my beloved @twelvefrog#5, which I minted on that wild night back in March. I know it isn't much to many of you in this space, but it meant a lot to me and held value far above & beyond what the current floor prices may have been...especially the early ones I inscribed myself back in the sparrow wallet days. https://twitter.com/tryggbtc/status/1691820182094614624He continued with, Obviously now some sats are more valuable than others, subjectively. It might either be good or bad, depending on the person, but what it probably adds is another psychological market-dynamic for pricing Bitcoin down to the lowest accounting unit, the Satoshi. In your opinion, are we still very early in our Bitcoin journey? Are we just starting to scratch the surface? |
|
|
|
Laughable. Obviously it's going to be a game of hot-potato. What country would truly be willing to hold the Rupee as a foreign reserve when it isn't really as useful as the U.S. Dollar in international trade? What CAN Saudi Arabia do with the Rupees it accepted? It's currently losing value against the Dollar.
Few refuse to understand that there are simply too many nations/states that are depending on the Dollar to succeed, including India and Saudi Arabia.
India at the moment is 5th largest economy and we can't ignore its currecny. Recently India became 4th country to land on the moon. That's not the point. The point is what could be done with the accumulated Rupee and what instutions in Saudi Arabia are willing to accept it? We already know that the U.S. Dollar is accepted by all, making it easier to accept. They would probably be buying the U.S. Dollar with those Rupees.
Dollar no doubt is still the global currency and China the biggest competitor of USA has 3 to 4 trillion reserves of USD. But this is also fact that there are alliance that are trying to have an alternate currency for trading like BRICS. It will take time and we have to wait and see output of this Alliance.
How long though? Long enough for the United States to exploit their dominance by causing a great reset? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5432581.msg62735591#msg62735591https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5432581.msg62742406#msg62742406All the best foreign investments from Saudi Arabia's viewpoint could be purchased by the Dollar, not the Rupee. |
|
|
|
|
Laughable. Obviously it's going to be a game of hot-potato. What country would truly be willing to hold the Rupee as a foreign reserve when it isn't really as useful as the U.S. Dollar in international trade? What CAN Saudi Arabia do with the Rupees it accepted? It's currently losing value against the Dollar.
Few refuse to understand that there are simply too many nations/states that are depending on the Dollar to succeed, including India and Saudi Arabia.
|
|
|
|
Conclusion of Powell's speech at the Jackson Hole symposium:
As is often the case, we are navigating by the stars under cloudy skies. In such circumstances, risk-management considerations are critical. At upcoming meetings, we will assess our progress based on the totality of the data and the evolving outlook and risks. Based on this assessment, we will proceed carefully as we decide whether to tighten further or, instead, to hold the policy rate constant and await further data.
Restoring price stability is essential to achieving both sides of our dual mandate. We will need price stability to achieve a sustained period of strong labor market conditions that benefit all.
We will keep at it until the job is done.
 He also said that, "they will asses their progress based on the totality of the data". That could be translate into = "We're not in control, Inflation is". Plus truly, the Federal Reserve's original mandate is not "dual", it's just for price stability. Employment is merely secondary, and if "the data" shows that they need to raise rates higher, they would do it even if killing the labor market would get their job in controlling inflation done. |
|
|
|
Isn't the SEC's decision over BlackRock's ETF scheduled next week? I believe it is.
Yeah, the first deadline for BlackRock's ETF is set for September 2, 2023. However, it seems like everybody is already expecting that the SEC might opt for yet another delay like they did with the ARK/21Shares ETF. We might have to wait until the final deadline, i.e. next year, for the decision. Perhaps there's something else going on that isn't quite public. Besides that whale who accumulated more than $3 billion in Bitcoin, the miners are also very bullish. The total hashing power in the network reached another ATH!  Does the hashing power follow the price? Or does the price follow the hashing power? My conclusion, BOTH, because miners are speculators too. In the current situation, the miners probably know "something". |
|
|
|
There are 81% of Bitcoin owners who, probably because of the lack of Bitcoin Education or laziness, say that they'll move their coins to their bank's "crypto storage" if it was available. It will not be a good future, if true.  Let's pretend that pie chart also represents the rest of the world, and that a large portion of the supply has actually been "deposited" under the control of centralized entities. How much of the total supply must be under the control of a Cabal before we could consider that Bitcoin has failed? |
|
|
|
No one knows who that address belongs to, but we know the purpose is obviously as an investment, or probably a store of value? What whale would accumulate such a high amount of Bitcoin to merely "trade" them. I believe the futures market would be more suitable for that. It's a "mystery". BUT it might also be coincidence? Isn't the SEC's decision over BlackRock's ETF scheduled next week? I believe it is. |
|
|
|
|
Bump.
Fed Chairman is speaking.
The speech was short, it ended in about 15 minutes.
Jerome Powell didn't say anything with conviction. He merely said that some sectors of the economy had sticky inflation that might require more rate hikes to control, and other sectors were already showing stability. His final statements were neither bullish nor bearish, and he concluded his speech with, "We are going to react depending on the data we gather". - Who's in control in this situation? The Federal Reserve or Inflation?
|
|
|
|
When Michael Saylor's, MicroStrategy buys bitcoin, the market price increase and they usually do so to mostly when the market is experiencing a down turn. Correct me if I am wrong but I am assuming they don't do so from miners via OTC trading offers. Keep reading . I was still years old(don't crucify me) when I learned that institutions can accumulate substantial amounts of Bitcoin without triggering significant fluctuations in the market price. They execute this through purchasing Bitcoin directly from miners via OTC trading offers. Now, I have learned that this is one of the ways that Blackrock is accumulating bitcoin. As some asked, I will ask here too: when institutions use this "silent" method to buy bitcoin, are they doing it to gain control of a large percentage of the market or it is purely profit driven?
It's going to be more about getting better fills with their purchase at the current and fair market price in my opinion. About your hypothesis about institutions wanting "to gain control of a large percentage of the market" - I believe for entities like BlackRock, it's ALWAYS in their M.O. to corner the market, IF they can. The situation that we should be concerned about is, how much of the TOTAL SUPPLY should be STORED in THEIR centralized vaults before we can actually say that Bitcoin is failing? What is the threshold? 50%? 60%? |
|
|
|
Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell will deliver a speech about what the Cabal behind the Federal Reserve will do for the next few months until the next Federal Reserve meeting. It will be live in this YouTube link, https://www.youtube.com/live/Y-1SowXR8zY?si=PZo7srAR42NgY4zXMany expect that because inflation is already decelerating, Powell might pause rate hikes again and give the stock market some time to "breathe". |
|
|
|
Not that much has changed, one might say it's even worse.
OK, I have a theory. But it's already very obvious. - Because Ordinals users have been carving their own niche within the Bitcoin community/organizing their own conferences/having their own "heroes" with Casey Rodarmor and Erin Redwing, I believe that during the next bull cycle some of those BRC-20 tokens and NFTs will DEFINITELY surge MORE than Bitcoin. If I wanted to do some shitcoining, frankly not my first time, which BRC-20 token should I gamble? I have serious doubts about this. I don’t indulge into shit ornery very much, but after months of this Ordinals saga, I haven’t seen a clear winner in the space. There isn’t a BAYC equivalent for ordinals, and while I understand that minting is different than trading, I doubt this relentless minting activity will be ever be beneficial for prices. Obviously not, and the Ordinals users/"advocates" themselves wouldn't give a direct answer which NFT/BRC-20 token they suggest you to HODL WITH conviction. Probably Udi will say it's his Onchain Wizards NFT, but we can't truly trust a troll, and a project that might also be built for trolling the Bitcoin community. Perhaps Udi has gone Taleb on us. But I truly want to know. Ordinals fans, which NFT/BRC-20 token do you honestly believe will have long term success? |
|
|
|
What's up with European countries falling ill lately? Are these connected or isolated ones?
The European Central Bank has been doing some rate hikes/tightening of their own to control inflation. A recession is a side-effect.
With the way things are going on the west you'd expect the US to fall face first before the rest of the planet, considering their piss-low recession's been marinating on its seat for years now, not to mention the pressure that the east is putting the rest of the world under by means of economical warfare. All of a sudden we find out Turkey's falling into despair, the war on Ukraine's still ongoing but now Russia's completely scraping by as even their mercenary for hires kicked them to the curb, and then we got here Netherlands falling ill on some sort of stagflation which is really depressing.
There were people who were called "alarmists" when they started saying that a major financial crisis was coming during 2005 - 2006. The actual crisis didn't start until 2007 - 2008. Patience and save money. Another golden opportunity might be coming.
Amidst this I feel like Iceland's going to be the remaining country in the planet that's not afflicted with any sort of economical sickness lol.
They're not immune from the "sickness". DYOR on Icelandic Financial Crisis when the value of the Krona went down against the Euro by 35% and banks started to fail. |
|
|
|
Tin-foil hats on. The United States Government and the Federal Reserve might be doing everything on purpose to get a credit downgrade and cause China and the other debt holders to dump U.S. Treasuries. Then they raised interest rates which restricted the supply of U.S. Dollars. Because of restricted supply, its value will go up sooner or later. Probably once the value of the Dollar is high enough, and the value of U.S. Treasuries are low enough, the Federal Reserve turns the money printer on and prints trillions of Dollars to buy all the cheap debt in the market. . Now that high interest rate means they also had to pay a ton of interest to those who were bag holding bonds thingies! This is why the US government had a battle to increase the debt ceiling. Because they needed to print a ton of money to pay those interests! They did do that in a month or two by printing nearly a trillion dollar. Guess what that newly printed money does to inflation  Besides, do you know what this game with interest rates does to the economy? It kills it and the society. People won't be able to pay their debts, whether it is a loan they took to buy a house or send their kids to college or a loan to start a business. Production is slowly dying because of how much it costs inside US soil. Where do they migrate to? LOL.... to China. This is why US currently has a war with two of its biggest investment companies called BlackRock and MSCI because they are slowly pulling about $15 trillion out of US. Guess their destination? You didn't get the point. 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. But what will they do with all those Dollars? Where will invest all that money? It's merely a shower thought, but I believe the United States is playing 4D Chess. |
|
|
|
Not that much has changed, one might say it's even worse.
OK, I have a theory. But it's already very obvious. - Because Ordinals users have been carving their own niche within the Bitcoin community/organizing their own conferences/having their own "heroes" with Casey Rodarmor and Erin Redwing, I believe that during the next bull cycle some of those BRC-20 tokens and NFTs will DEFINITELY surge MORE than Bitcoin. If I wanted to do some shitcoining, frankly not my first time, which BRC-20 token should I gamble? |
|
|
|
But the silly-picture-selling crowd doesn't want to store their pictures in a offchain layer. They want them in a highly secure bank-vault, which the Bitcoin blockchain provides. That's probably what will give them their "value".
True enough. They're also not going to waste time to try and genuinely optimise their infrastructure if the primary goal is simply to offload the memes to the next sap and move on to a new swindle (that looks and sounds like all their old swindles, but bundled in a shiny new wrapper with the latest jargon and buzzwords). Pump shit -> Dump shit -> Move on -> Repeat. But from the point of view of those more technically intelligent collectors, there would probably be more value in NFTs inscribed in the most secure Blockchain in the world than those merely minted in an off-chain layer. I might be the stupid one, but if I wanted to collect dick pics, I would only want them inscribed on-chain, in the Bitcoin blockchain. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
