can't even describe lol tell me what is so hard to understand? my first post on this topic gives the clear concept of what I want you don't know English now?
As a native English speaker, I find it difficult to understand what you have written because your grammar and punctuation (which are important components of the language) are poor. If I understand you correctly, you would like someone to create a vanity address generator that returns a number, N, such that a private key derived from SHA256( M| N) has an address that matches a pattern, where M and the pattern are both chosen by the user. That is certainly doable. Is there a limit on the value of the number? Keep in mind that as others have mentioned, any brain wallet is insecure. That includes your derivation of a brain wallet. While "now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country 67854897" is more secure than "now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country", it may not be not secure enough to be used as a private key.
|
|
|
He argues that "the second term vanishes under the smallest positive discount rate" and this is correct. But discount rate is dependable on time itself and can be both positive and negative. Therefore d should be replaced with di. This brings a difference into summation and Pt may grow over time.
I believe that the flaw in his analysis is even more basic. He incorrectly assumes that there is no cash flow, but while there is no periodic cash benefit from holding bitcoins, there is a periodic utility benefit from using bitcoins. This is basically why any money has value despite not having a cash flow. I don't know why he doesn't get that.
|
|
|
TL;DR: Nassim Taleb believes that Bitcoin is over-hyped and that it can never succeed because it has yet to of live up to the utopian ideals of its supporters, and also because of <insert FUD here>. My chief complaint about this paper is that it is not a dispassionate analysis as you would expect. Instead, it is drenched in opinion and innuendo. It would more accurately be described as an essay written in the form of a paper. The proof of work method has an adjustable degree of difficulty based on the speed of blocks, which aims, in theory, to keep the incentive sufficiently high for miners to keep operating the system. Such adjustments lead to an exponential increase in computer power requirements,
While it can be argued that the exponential rise in energy usage is facilitated by the difficulty adjustments, it is not due the difficulty adjustments. The exponential rise in energy usage is due to the rise in price, which has been driven by the rise in adoption. The implication is that ... if we expect that, at any point in the future, the value will be zero when ... future generations get into other such "assets" and bitcoin loses its appeal to them,then the value must be zero now
Here he describes a paradox that applies to all money, and not just Bitcoin. Comment 2: Success for a digital currency There is a mistaken conflation between success for a "digital currency", which requires some stability and usability, and speculative price appreciation.
While I somewhat agree on his unstated opinion (that the current price does not necessarily indicate success), the comment ignores the fact that the current value of an asset is also based on the risk adjusted discounted value of its future utility. A high value now simply expresses an optimistic belief in the future utility of Bitcoin. Gold stocks were growing too slowly, and, as mentioned earlier, much of it went to jewelry and industry —the most credible theory is that there was not enough gold to keep up with economic government growth. Furthermore, there had been long debates over the hampering of monetary policy by sticking to metals, as witnessed by the bullionist controversy. It appears that developed economies governments have trouble hemming their currencies to a commodity.
FTFY. What he is really describing here is the demise of a gold standard due to the failure of governments to maintain fiscal responsibility and, to some extent, the problems with the portability of gold.
|
|
|
I was thinking about implementing a crypto payment gateway in my e-commerce website. But I need a better fundamental understanding of this.
It might be easier and safer to integrate btcpay server ( https://btcpayserver.org/) into your site rather than creating your own. I strongly recommend it. There are so many things that could go wrong if you do it yourself, especially if you are not familiar with the Bitcoin protocols and best practices.
|
|
|
- The fact that Craig Wright would not allow Gavin to use his own verification hardware and software points to fraud since such a restriction has no other reasonable purpose.
- The most reasonable explanation of the lack of independently verifiable proof from Craig Wright is that he is unable to provide it. Providing independently verifiable proof should be trivial, or providing a reasonable explanation for the inability should be trivial. He can do neither.
- The subterfuge and the incredible amounts of manipulation and manufacture of evidence over the years (even after disregarding any acts not directly attributable to CSW) indicate to me that he is being deceptive.
|
|
|
Any recommendations of books or resources on the bearish case for bitcoin? Not after media FUD, just want to find some detailed resources on the why bitcoin potentially won't work out or the risks behind it.
I don't think you are going to find much because the people that do the research on Bitcoin are generally pro-Bitcoin. There is not much incentive to show that something as insignificant as Bitcoin won't work. Despite that, I have come across a couple academic papers over the years describing why Bitcoin may not be sustainable. For example: Carlsten, et al. On the Instability of Bitcoin Without the Block Reward. 2016
|
|
|
What's the difference between Raspibolt and Raspiblitz? Is the bolt a bit more hands on? I have a Pi4 8GB btw. I'm thinking of doing it all myself, I'm just a tad worried I might mess something up and start leaking over clearnet for example. i'm relatively comfortable with bitcoin core by now, but have never touched lnd or electrum server (except eps)
I had mistakenly assumed that Raspiblitz was a kit. Given that you can buy the hardware separately for Raspiblitz, I don't know the pros and cons of Raspibolt vs. Raspiblitz. I would be interested in that info also.
|
|
|
Does anyone recommend either of these projects or know of other projects that I should consider and why? So far I'm most interested in myNode and Raspiblitz. I know Umbrel is easy but I heard the security isn't the best.
If you already have an RPi and and a drive, then you want to set up the RaspiBolt project: https://stadicus.github.io/RaspiBolt/I have bitcoind, lnd, electrs, JoinMarket, btc-rpc-explorer, and TOR set up on my RPi via Raspibolt.
|
|
|
Bitcoin currently has fixed supply of 21m coins. Are there any advantages to having a reducing supply over time via burning. If yes, why hasn't this been implemented yet? If no, the follow up question is: are there any disadvantages to an increasing supply?
The ideal currency has a constant value. So how can creating or burning coins achieve this goal? The factors that affect the value of a currency are the supply, the velocity, and the economy. The value of a coin will remain constant if you burn coins when the velocity is increasing or the economy is decreasing. Likewise, the value of a coin will remain constant if you create coins when the velocity is decreasing or the economy is increasing. In reality, maintaining a constant value is impossible to achieve because the velocity and economy are too difficult to measure or control. If you can't control the value of a currency, a secondary goal then might be to reduce economic uncertainty. One way reduce uncertainty is to eliminate the variability of the supply. Such as, - Assume that the economy will always grow and create coins forever on a fixed schedule.
- Assume that the economy will always shrink and burn coins forever on a fixed schedule.
- Make no assumptions and maintain the supply at a fixed number.
Assuming the economy will shrink forever is a bad assumption. That is why coins are not (or should not be) burned. Assuming that the economy will increase forever is reasonable, even though that is not what really happens, so creating coins according to a fixed schedule is not bad. The difficulty, however, is to pick the appropriate creation rate. Too high, and you have inflation. Too low, and you have deflation. Picking the correct rate is not possible so the best choice is too pick a rate that is probably low in order to avoid risks (including hyperinflation). Bitcoin make no assumptions and maintains the supply at a fixed number. While this may result in an increasing value due to lost coins and an increasing economy, it eliminates all uncertainty about the supply.
|
|
|
I'm not sure if it's what you're looking for but I always go with https://bitaccelerate.com and the transaction usually starts to go through a little while later. ... That site does not accelerate a transaction. It simply rebroadcasts a transaction, which is something that most wallets can do (and some wallets do it automatically). Rebroadcast only helps if the transaction has been dropped from the mempool, which is rarely the problem. I have never used an accelerator, but I know that viabtc's accelerator ( https://www.viabtc.com/tools/txaccelerator/) is free, though there are some restrictions. And be careful, because there are many spoof sites. Also, if you can wait a little longer, the difficulty will be dropping soon. That will result in higher throughput, and the mempool may clear again as a result.
|
|
|
My real point here is that you can make up any numbers that you want (as you and I both demonstrated) and there is no way to validate them, so any claims of proof by probability cannot be valid.
Zero isn't a number. Zero is lack of existence. I guess you are waxing philosophical here (zero is a number) in order to avoid acknowledging the fact that you have failed to prove scientifically that God exists. Maybe you could try to prove mathematically that God ≠ 0.
|
|
|
You are ignoring the sell pressure of all the bitcoins already in circulation. The sell pressure only goes up (even with the halving) as more bitcoins are added to the supply.
That's assuming that the demand (buying pressure in opposite of sell pressure) is not going up faster. Considering that bitcoin adoption is still in its very early stages and the demand is increasing, we can safely say that this assumption is not true. Supply and demand are independent. The supply of bitcoins is always increasing. The demand is not. Thus, we have price swings. In the long run, both have increased with demand outpacing supply. I hope we can agree on those. However, a halving is a moment in time in which the production slows (but the supply continues to increase and demand does whatever it does). If the halving truly has an effect on prices due to the change in production, we should see something happen to the price at that time, but we don't. The two big price increases we have seen 1 - 2 years after the halvings must be due to something else. Maybe there is something going on, but it can't be attributed to the production cuts.
|
|
|
I’m sure everybody loves paying taxes, but I am no expert but say with this current drop In price if I moved bitcoin outside of the US and to an El Salvador wallet, would that be saving on the future sale of bitcoin or what would that look like for capital gains? I’m asking for a friend, I already lost all my bitcoin in a boating accident.
In the U.S., simply moving bitcoins is not a taxable event. Furthermore, bitcoins don't exist in any location. You can move them from one address to another, but you can't move from one country to another. However, if you are sending them to an account maintained by a company in a foreign country, then that may have tax implications.
|
|
|
Even though bitcoin has a max supply we are still "printing" more bitcoin every day, these are coins that enter circulation and are mostly sold by miners to pay their bills. Consequently there has to be less sell pressure when we "print" about 900BTC per day in this period versus when we were printing 1800BTC per day in previous period.
You are ignoring the sell pressure of all the bitcoins already in circulation. The sell pressure only goes up (even with the halving) as more bitcoins are added to the supply.
|
|
|
And we have proof of billions of things having been made, ...
You claim that there are billions of machines with provable makers. Fine. I claim that there are trillions of machines without provable makers. Therefore, the probability of a machine having a maker is 1/1000. That's where you make your mistake. The trillions of machines without provable makers are really not only as you said, but also they are trillions of machines that easily might have makers. Those trillions cancel themselves out as being part of the equation. Find five or ten machines that provably DON'T have a maker... or even one such machine... so we can pit them/it against the billions of machines that we KNOW have makers. That way we'll have a start in your direction. My real point here is that you can make up any numbers that you want (as you and I both demonstrated) and there is no way to validate them, so any claims of proof by probability cannot be valid.
|
|
|
I sent bitcoin today but after more than 1.5 hours of waiting, I could only get 9 confirmations. Still waiting! Haaaaaaay.....
Better Coins for speed are Litecoin : 2½ minute blockspeed Doge : 1 minute Blockspeed Cardano and Algorand : less than 20 seconds "Better" is subjective. Those coins might have a lower block interval, but they are less secure. While an exchange might require 1-3 confirmations for BTC, they typically require many more for the coins you listed. Here are the confirmation requirements for Kraken deposits: Cryptocurrency | Confirmations Required | Algorand (ALGO) | 10 confirmations | Bitcoin (BTC) | 4 confirmations (depending on fee) | Cardano (ADA) | 15 confirmations | Dogecoin (DOGE) | 40 confirmations | Litecoin (LTC) | 12 confirmations |
|
|
|
Once we get to this stage, we have a currency thats also an appreciating asset. This means that compared to a fiat world, more people would be incentivised to keep some of their wealth in the currency rather than assets such as stocks. Doesn't this disincentivise investment in businesses and therefore have a negative impact on economic activity? Would this then be one of the problems with Bitcoin as global currency?
Yes, but saving is a good thing. It reduces risk. Typical Keynesian economics views any deflation as a serious problem, but deflation is no worse than inflation in my view. When people talk about the risks of deflation, they typically leap to hyper-deflation as if it is a foregone conclusion. But, I believe that is no more valid than the idea that any inflation will inevitably lead to hyper-inflation.
|
|
|
Red flags:
1. Anonymous. 2. Recent domain registration. 3. Claims to be "regulated".
|
|
|
No I am not rich. I just got started into Crypto mining. Activated an old coinbase account from 7 years ago (forgot I even had it). Found 2 old BTC addresses in there an looked them up. Big fat zero.
Addresses at Coinbase belong to Coinbase. It doesn't matter how much they have in them. You have what Coinbase says you have.
|
|
|
|