Trading is like gambling
It IS actual gambling, especially for us plebs. I don't care what "skill arguments and justifications" many people post because if there's any possibility that we'll lose money in something, then it's a gamble. Having said that, even starting a business is a gamble, and a leveraged gamble at that if you, as the entrepreneur, are using borrowed/loaned money. . Trading is gambling and only few traders make success in trading just the way gamble is. In trading one with always loss more than he gains. When you trade is like you are chasing shadows instead of hodli to make big profit. Newbies think trading is profitable and they rush into it without know the risk involved in it for professional traders,talk more of the newbies.What I have understand in bitcoin investment,it is better that you cherish your coins and keep hodli than you get greedy and gamble them off,think that you want to make profit with your coins. No, the point is more like, to start a business you need to borrow money, and to borrow money you need to have something as collateral as an assurance for the borrower, with you knowing that you might lose the collateral if your business fails. That's the gamble, and the probability of success for any new business is only 25% to live for 15 years. 75% of new businesses fail within 15 years. |
|
|
|
From just a business and investment perspective, what would be the more significant investments than what BlackRock and the other asset managers are going to bring if their applications are approved? I can't think of any other unless Russia and other sanctioned countries start buying Bitcoin and HODL them in their "vaults".
Why, buying actual Bitcoin and holding it. As I've mentioned many times, institutional interest from 2016 already led to huge OTC buys. Look at the famed custodians holding huge amounts on behalf of institutional. Look at Saylor, more recently. Look at the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund from a few years back. They didn't need to sit around waiting fir ETFs (which interest short-term speculators). They went out and added actual coins to their portfolios. You don't think those are more significant than ETFs that sometimes also use derivatives? Then again. I'm no expert, just an opinion-monger ha. I'm no expert too, I'm merely a pleb like most people in BitcoinTalk, BUT what I heard is BlackRock has ownership rights in most United States Banks, they own shares in most of U.S. Pharma and they are said to be an administrator of 10% of trading of major stocks WORLDWIDE. The total assets they manage might be half of the United States' GDP, it's said to be worth 10 Trillion United States Dollars. BlackRock is also the biggest asset manager that owns shares in Amazon, Google, Facebook, other major tech companies, AND currently they want Bitcoin. To $500,000? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ |
|
|
|
Trading is like gambling
It IS actual gambling, especially for us plebs. I don't care what "skill arguments and justifications" many people post because if there's any possibility that we'll lose money in something, then it's a gamble. Having said that, even starting a business is a gamble, and a leveraged gamble at that if you, as the entrepreneur, are using borrowed/loaned money. |
|
|
|
|
My advice - BE CAREFUL
Investment and trading books, articles and videos are made by people who might not actually be winning traders. They make their money by writing "investment materials" and sell it to us, the plebs.
Plus "as traders", most of you will lose money and leave. Some of you might return and lose more money. Some might have learned their lesson the hard way and just HODL Bitcoin. The few who actually put in the most time, effort and who are well-capitalized might make it.
|
|
|
|
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
| Luxembourg
Australia
New Zealand
Germany
United Kingdom
Ireland
Netherlands
France
Canada
Monaco
Belgium
San Marino
South Korea
Israel
Austria
Slovenia
Spain
Japan
United States of America
Andorra
Taiwan
Malta
Lithuania
The Bahamas
Poland
Greece
Oman
Hong Kong
Macau
Portugal
Saudi Arabia
Argentina
Barbados
Slovakia
Czech Republic
Romania
Estonia
Latvia
Croatia
Palestine
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Montenegro
Hungary
Antigua and Barbuda
Palau
Costa Rica
Turkey
Bulgaria
Belize
Ecuador
Jordan
Lebanon
Uruguay
Chile
Trinidad and Tobago
Marshall Islands
Bolivia
Paraguay
Morocco
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Guatemala
Colombia
Panama
Albania
South Africa
El Salvador
Serbia
Turkmenistan
Seychelles
Gabon
Vanuatu
Fiji
Thailand
Mexico
Dominica
Brazil
Peru
Ukraine
Philippines
Equatorial Guinea
Malaysia
Russia
People's Republic of China
Dominican Republic
Mauritius
Indonesia
Azerbaijan
Honduras
Republic of Macedonia
Kosovo
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Jamaica
Kuwait
Cambodia
Papua New Guinea
Iraq
Guyana
Tunisia
Republic of the Congo
Botswana
Moldova
Armenia
Algeria
Mongolia
Laos
Vietnam
Comoros
Nepal
Nicaragua
East Timor
Chad
Pakistan
Iran
Libya
Uzbekistan
Haiti
Mauritania
Lesotho
Solomon Islands
Nigeria
Benin
Afghanistan
Central African Republic
Kazakhstan
Ivory Coast
Cameroon
Togo
Burkina Faso
Kenya
Eswatini
Myanmar
Senegal
India
Angola
Niger
Mali
Bhutan
Sri Lanka
Zambia
Sierra Leone
Mozambique
Ghana
Uganda
Guinea-Bissau
Madagascar
Malawi
Tajikistan
The Gambia
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Bangladesh
Tanzania
Kyrgyzstan
Syria
Cuba
Sudan
Venezuela | 341
345
350
371
405
435
439
451
454
455
456
514
522
556
630
641
661
677
726
735
915
974
996
1,003
1,009
1,018
1,067
1,091
1,098
1,102
1,141
1,223
1,239
1,257
1,261
1,265
1,387
1,543
1,548
1,568
1,579
1,714
1,718
1,733
1,755
1,782
1,823
1,840
1,872
1,982
2,025
2,038
2,052
2,055
2,373
2,632
2,690
2,700
2,740
2,773
2,791
2,823
2,867
2,952
2,983
3,000
3,033
3,193
3,336
3,373
3,380
3,388
3,401
3,528
3,554
3,746
3,807
3,831
3,862
3,922
4,109
4,138
4,145
4,191
4,314
4,471
4,497
4,525
4,529
4,538
4,549
4,559
4,563
4,704
5,249
5,292
5,434
5,475
5,621
5,665
5,815
6,128
6,162
6,190
6,322
6,882
6,900
7,185
7,271
7,935
8,436
8,495
8,774
9,367
10,519
10,799
11,151
11,454
11,736
12,153
12,659
12,762
13,337
13,739
13,826
13,949
14,465
14,600
15,598
15,778
15,847
15,962
16,246
16,516
16,846
17,776
17,980
18,159
18,372
19,043
19,909
25,289
25,704
26,578
29,122
41,165
41,321
43,281
49,773
51,651
52,392
67,593
114,063
248,864
842,308
1,095,000 |
Compare with the countries with the highest inflation rates and notice the numbers in Venezuela, Sudan, and Syria. It doesn't only show that people in countries with the lowest minimum wages take longer to accumulate until they have one whole Bitcoin, it also shows that if you live in one of these countries, you SHOULD own Bitcoin as a store of value. |
|
|
|
Just did a quick look around, has there been ANY update anywhere on this?
None that i have heard or seen of, i think the bigger issue here is that Atomic Wallet doesn't know what caused the mass attack of their customers, so i don't think we are looking forward to any update. It is closed source, they don't know what caused the hack, then it can happen again! Because it's closed source doesn't mean that they do not know what caused the hack, they probably do. It should actually be BECAUSE it's closed source that the community should be more suspicious. The Atomic developers can check the code, but the open source community can't. What could go wrong? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ |
|
|
|
From just a business and investment perspective, what would be the more significant investments than what BlackRock and the other asset managers are going to bring if their applications are approved? I can't think of any other unless Russia and other sanctioned countries start buying Bitcoin and HODL them in their "vaults".
Let's hope this bold will not happen (at least not officially) because it would be the ideal vector of attacks on Bitcoin in the rest of the world. Well whether that will or won't happen, it's truly out of our control. We will have our differences and our own personal opinions about it, but there's nothing that can be done about it. No one has any right to say how, or who, or where Bitcoin should be used, who should be using it, and where it should be used. Bitcoin itself is neutral.
The implications that such countries would start buying larger amounts of BTC add fuel to the fire of those who want to portray BTC as something that serves these countries to avoid sanctions.
Of course Bitcoin as well as fiat can serve good as well as bad purposes, but the key difference is that the "dirty fiat" has the support of every state that issues it, while Bitcoin is exposed to attacks from all sides and practically has no adequate defense.
I know everyone wants Bitcoin to be viewed as something as a net-good for the world, but as technically designed, what does everyone truly and honestly think could happen? |
|
|
|
Why should this be any different?
That's the point, if there are tens of billions of dollars in the bitcoin world by these giant companies, then we shouldn't be shocked that ETF is not the only thing that matters. I am not saying that ETF would not mean anything, but do not consider that as the only thing that matters neither. I believe that we are going to be fine and we shouldn't really be worried about it. I know that it hurt a lot of people to see ETF did not get accepted right away, but that's how it works and we should be accepting the reality instead of just moan about it. If we keep dwelling on it, then we are going to miss out, look at those big companies that put billions into bitcoin, they are not moaning and complaining, they are taking an action, so should we. Even if ETFs were to matter, they would be among the most insignificant of anything that did. I think the proof keeps showing up in the various ETF puddings, no matter the flavour. I really feel like too much was made out of them (along with their delays and repeated applications, which, for any other financial instrument is normal, regular, and doesn't raise eyebrows). From just a business and investment perspective, what would be the more significant investments than what BlackRock and the other asset managers are going to bring if their applications are approved? I can't think of any other unless Russia and other sanctioned countries start buying Bitcoin and HODL them in their "vaults". |
|
|
|
funny part is if you want to look at many CBDC prototypes you can. the BIS and hyperledger have full examples
heck even china has released documentation about how their e-cny works
the easiest comparisons of many CBDB (mostly those bridged to the BIS m-bridge) are for want of a better comparison.. a liquid chain with a ln subnetwork (yes its no surprise many CBDC are using blockstream prototypes)
 There you go again frankandbeans. Spreading misinformation in a subtle way. Before you gaslight everyone into believing that Liquid/Lightning = Evil CBDC Supporting Protocol, let's make it clear that they are open source code for protocols that don't need any permission to be used how they want. People in the "cryptocurrency community" should know better than other people that CBDC is not offering anything fundamentally different from the fiat that they are already using every day. CBDC is another currency issued by the banks and both controlled and used through the banks which is practically similar to fiat which is also issued and controlled by the banks and almost always used through the banks (except when you use cash but who is these days?).
You already don't have any privacy when you use banks and using CBDC isn't going to change that.
CBDCs are other forms of fiat currencies and they all are created and controlled by central banks. In the past central banks print money from factories. In future with CBDCs, they will be minted from thin air, code and data centers. [GUIDE] All About Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC)How Money is madeThe video How is Money Created? – Everything You Need to Know shows how fiat currencies can be printed from paper and why their purchasing power becomes smaller. Purchasing power of the US. dollar over timeI'm gonna have to disappoint you a little bit. CBDC is the real evil, the evil that blockchain technology and the mega-popularity of cryptocurrencies have wrought. CBDC is not the digital equivalent of fiat, it's far worse. It's a solution that allows you to TOTALLY control and manage the flow of money. YOUR money. "Your money" in a CBDC system will not actually be your money. It's the absolute opposite of what Bitcoin is trying to be. It may be more efficient, more convenient and user-friendly, but it's not actual money. It's a mere token. It might be good to have and use to live in the real world. But always HODL Bitcoin as a fall back. |
|
|
|
If the Lightning Network is as bad as you say, then OK. But that doesn't signify that the developers should stop working on it or users should stop using it just because of your trolling-opinion.
Honestly, if I were a dev and having doubts or second thoughts about the work I was doing on LN, but then I read one of franky1's posts, I'd redouble my efforts and work that much harder just to spite him. That's the effect he has on people. He thinks he's being demotivational, but he's doing the complete opposite. If he had any real faith in what he's claiming, he'd just shut up and let it happen. But he sees LN development continuing and more in the pipeline to come, so he feels compelled to keep sniping from the sidelines. Palpable butthurt is palpable. No one likes his worthless ideas, so he has to lash out at the ideas people do like. Petty and tragic in equal measure. Why would any dev read franky1's posts? They're laughable and full of disinformation. I know there are criticisms directed to the Lightning Network, but there probably isn't another team of developers that's doing as great of a job. Compare Lightning developers to the developers of something like BCash. It's not close in my opinion and franky1 comes in the forum and gaslights us that we are wrong? Haha. |
|
|
|
funny part is that more people use CEX internal reserve swaps between services and stable coin by a magnitude of 1,000,000x compared to LN
the reason people avoid the bitcoin network first and then use CEX second and then use ln 7th (other bridge subnetworks exist with more liquidity 3-6) is due primarily due to high onchain fees.
yep people avoid the bitcoin network due to fee's not due to (lack of)successes of other flawed systems
funny part is instead of fixing flaws to make it better they just want to promote any hype they can find
especially when if you really observe you will find the initiation of LN was inspired by the hyperledger project(institutions gathering to prototype CBDC, asking bitcoin devs to develop and sandbox test CDBC methodology on subnetworks)
so ofcourse a FED is going to suck eggs about something they pushed for years prior. as its the basis of their own project
Yes yes, and the way to fix those flaws to make onchain fees lower is simply to hard fork to bigger blocks like BCash, right, right? Noted. It has been debated here in the forum before. It will be challenging for users to run Lightning nodes altruistically forever. There will be opportunity costs because Bitcoin = a form of capital. There must be enough incentives for all that capital to be locked in those channels. If not, then the result is simple. They leave. you really are not learning much are you. you are reading buzzwords and snippets and repeating them like a robot. but you are not actually learning or understanding.. And what was that I'm not learning much? What "buzzwords" am I reading and keep repeating but I don't actually understand? Are you telling me that the Core developers are giving out false information and they're scammers? That they shouldn't be the rightful stewards of the network? We've heard it all before, frankyandbeans. But it's time to move on. You probably should go to a BCash forum and talk about your issues there. After two Bitcoin Core developers gave you two negative trust ratings, why should people, especially newbies, listen to you? You're a troll.
--Snip--
If the Lightning Network is as bad as you say, then OK. But that doesn't signify that the developers should stop working on it or users should stop using it just because of your trolling-opinion. Plus what's very great about it is it never needed anyone's permission to be built on Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
But look where "Loaded" is now, and where he actually got his Bitcoins from. It was probably better for him to have stayed quiet and worked harder on his OPSEC.
Also, may I remind you. Cryptopunks and BAYC holders are signifying the same thing (Rich Believers in Crypto).
It's a different culture. Cryptopunks and BAYC holders are Ethereum whales. , he got caught because he transferred to a KYC exchange. But it still doesn't change the fact that a "Flexing NFT", just to prove the owner has 1000 Bitcoins, isn't good for a user's OPSEC. Would it be good for "Loaded" to flex, knowing himself where his coins came from?
But yeah you're probably right, Eth whales better would be a better candidate for this project.
👍 Good luck to your idea and don't take my posts personally. They are merely my opinions, which could be wrong or proven wrong. |
|
|
|
Has Channel CoinJoins already been added and implemented in Lightning? I read about it two years ago, but had since heard nothing about it.
If it's added, then Lightning is still not the first choice protocol for regular Bitcoin users to "mix" their coins. Many users choose to convert to Monero or use CoinJoin and mixers. Plus it's marketed that "fast, cheap transactions" is still the main value proposition for Lightning, not privacy.
You may be referring to this article: https://thebitcoinmanual.com/articles/lightning-coinjoins/Splicing and rebalancing seem quite useful and can definitely add some extra privacy on top. I first read about Splicing and CoinJoin in this site, https://lightningprivacy.com/en/channel-coinjoinsBut the information in there is limited. We need more ELI-5 kind of write ups. Obviously not. That's probably why the community isn't in a hurry to adopt LN. Put some privacy features in there that's sufficient enough to hide a user's tracks, then we could see demand for Lightning channels surge. I'm not sure about the state of splicing in July 2023, though. Core Lightning has an open Pull Request for it, although it seems like other implementations just started supporting it: the PhoenixWallet which allows you to store your Bitcoin on the lightning network itself, has implemented "splicing" in beta and other great features!
👍 Achieving base layer privacy through Lightning might illustrate that's the perfect conjunction between onchain and offchain. |
|
|
|
funny part is that more people use CEX internal reserve swaps between services and stable coin by a magnitude of 1,000,000x compared to LN
the reason people avoid the bitcoin network first and then use CEX second and then use ln 7th (other bridge subnetworks exist with more liquidity 3-6) is due primarily due to high onchain fees.
yep people avoid the bitcoin network due to fee's not due to (lack of)successes of other flawed systems
funny part is instead of fixing flaws to make it better they just want to promote any hype they can find
especially when if you really observe you will find the initiation of LN was inspired by the hyperledger project(institutions gathering to prototype CBDC, asking bitcoin devs to develop and sandbox test CDBC methodology on subnetworks)
so ofcourse a FED is going to suck eggs about something they pushed for years prior. as its the basis of their own project
Yes yes, and the way to fix those flaws to make onchain fees lower is simply to hard fork to bigger blocks like BCash, right, right? Noted. Here's a write up for everyone, especially newbies, to read, https://medium.com/hackernoon/thats-not-bitcoin-that-s-bcash-f730f0d0a837OK, let's move on. SBW Wond be supporting LN anymore. Motivations are interesting.  It has been debated here in the forum before. It will be challenging for users to run Lightning nodes altruistically forever. There will be opportunity costs because Bitcoin = a form of capital. There must be enough incentives for all that capital to be locked in those channels. If not, then the result is simple. They leave. |
|
|
|
I haven't taken a look at the source code, going by Pedro Magalhães assessment:
Blockchain's meant to be utilized as a trustless system IMO but all Brazil's done here is centralize the system with this alleged protocol. Under no circumstances should coins be burned from addresses nor should they be frozen. Assume it'll be abused by the government to compel compliance from their constituency and assume they'll try and market this as a cryptocurrency adjacent by throwing around the word "blockchain"
His assessement is on point, and it has been happening in the cryptocurrency world for years. A "blockchain" without Proof Of Work as a consensus and a security mechanism is not an actual blockchain. A real blockchain should also be immutable. If there's a centralized authority deciding which coins get burned or which of them get frozen, then perhaps they should consider not wasting their time on "blockchain" and use a centralized database. People agree to this primarily because of the convenience. Electronic payments, whether it be a bank card or NFC (Near-Field Communication) is more convenient than cash. Attached a card or phone to the device and that's it, the payment received. No need to delve into your wallet, count, exchange, wait for the cashier to calculate, give change. It's quick and easy - that's what attracts people. And with payment using the retinal scan, here in general, you don’t even have to get a bank card or phone out of your pocket. I don't approve of this, but it looks like our world is inevitably heading in that direction. Laziness is a real engine of technology.
Human laziness and stupidity (indifference to one's freedom and privacy) will certainly lead to the spread of this terrible method of payment.
Yes, it’s laziness and stupidity, it’s not difficult to guess that under this “convenience” there is total control over every step, every cent spent. Retinal scanning discouraged me in general, it's really stupid, but I see that it's even fun for buyers to pay in this way, this is a bad sign, the majority will accept all the innovations and be happy about it, and no one will think about the consequences until it's too late. I don’t know, any step against the state will endanger their finances, went out to some kind of protest, scan the retina from a drone and block all the money in the account. It may sound a little paranoid, but this is just one example. The "convenience" part is not what's truly concerning about CBDCs. It's the fact that there's a central authority somewhere that could censor you from using the system. It could be a dangerously tyrannical tool - the opposite of Bitcoin's ethos. |
|
|
|
Why would someone buy this?
People who see your NFT will know that you're hodling a lot of Bitcoins. Why would I want to put a digital target on my back saying I own or have owned at least 1000 bitcoin recently? Would you want to walk down a street holding a sign saying you are rich or have a lot of gold in your house? Many bitcoiners want to remain anonymous and not draw unnecessary attention to themselves. They also wouldn't care about hyped digital waste known as NFTs that could maybe have one or two useful application with the rest being garbage. I am sorry, but I don't think many would be interested in this. Why do people buy designer clothes? Why do they wear million-dollar watches? That also puts a literal target on your back, you just have to make sure your security is on point. Yes many bitcoiners love being anonymous. But also we are people, we like to announce to the world what we are proud of. We like to announce to the world that we believe in Bitcoin, and also the fact that we have made it big at the same time. It's a different culture with Bitcoiners compared to your community of people who wear designer clothes. Bitcoiners are more interested in tools that make people more ungovernable, although I believe none would admit it to avoid Big Brother's eyes probing over them. Haha. Plus your idea is probably good for younger Bitcoin HODLers who want to flex their wealth, but such a project could also be a government honeypot. It's not good for OPSEC. its a different culture, yes. but we're still human. There used to be a user here called "Loaded". His whole thing was going around, flexing that he had 80k BTC. There have also been a couple users flexing that they had 100+ btc throughout the years. But look where "Loaded" is now, and where he actually got his Bitcoins from. It was probably better for him to have stayed quiet and worked harder on his OPSEC.
Also, may I remind you. Cryptopunks and BAYC holders are signifying the same thing (Rich Believers in Crypto).
It's a different culture. Cryptopunks and BAYC holders are Ethereum whales.
Also, I don't see how this could be a honeypot. Criminals always try to stay under the radar (at least the smart ones).
This would only be useful to people with legitimate funds.
I'm not saying it definitely will be a honeypot, but it's possible. If it's possible, then it's not good for a user's OPSEC. |
|
|
|
The whole point of a government / Central Bank issued CBDC is that the people lose ‘total control’ of their money. I mean most people won’t have a problem with every day purchases but they have the power to stop you buying certain products, stop you buying too much fuel if you use too much carbon. That’s where a CBDC leads to, authoritarianism, like China, social credit scores etc. I really hope CBDC’s do not happen, they will tax & know everything. If you fix a car for a neighbour for a small fee, they will know. They want to abolish cash, hopefully it doesn’t happen.
Another nefarious thing they could do is if you have a low credit score. They could program the system to disallow those people from spending too much until the debts are paid, which wouldn't be too bad to help control spending habits. Haha. I have debated about Bitcoin having more value in a CBDC world a year ago, but no one truly got the context because most of the posters of the forum during that time thought CBDC is going to be a simple replacement for paper money without the programmability. |
|
|
|
I know franky1 doesn't believe it, we have debated about it before. Although he made a good point, he didn't consider the Cabal's long term, and possibly unlimited, printing of fiat.  On the road to $500,000. You know how they just “raised the debt ceiling?” This isn’t true. They didn’t raise the ceiling, they eliminated it until a future date. Do you remember the last time they did that? It was august 2019. September 2019 was the repo crisis, where overnight loans on treasuries hit an annualized interest rate of 10%! And conveniently we had a reason to make money printer go BRRR in 2020. I don’t in general like conspiracies, but with no limit on US debt, we have effectively put a blank check out there for anyone to cash if they can create the economic conditions necessary to justify massive money printing. We are incentivizing our own destruction. I wouldn’t be surprised if we have some major happen in 2024…a new pandemic with lockdowns, WW3 starting in earnest, aliens turn out to be here and not-so-friendly, etc… No conspiracies required, the U.S. economy is in need of a "reset" because there's just too much money in circulation. I know the latest inflation prints show that disinflation is finally happening, but the data on unemployment remains very low which indicates high demand and could indicate a reinflationary event probably happening. There's also the risk of wage inflation. When - not if - it happens, the Federal Reserve would need to raise rates more aggressively. It has happened with Volcker before, it's highly probable that it will happen with Powell again. |
|
|
|
It's still very early days for Lightning.
It's not that early. I mean, lightning began in 2017. Six years and two bull markets have passed since then. I'm sorry, but from a very long term perspective, it's very VERY early days. We haven't truly reached mass adoption yet. Is it merely for fast, cheap, peer to peer transactions? Or could it be a privacy layer for Bitcoiners?
It's both already. Has Channel CoinJoins already been added and implemented in Lightning? I read about it two years ago, but had since heard nothing about it. If it's added, then Lightning is still not the first choice protocol for regular Bitcoin users to "mix" their coins. Many users choose to convert to Monero or use CoinJoin and mixers. Plus it's marketed that "fast, cheap transactions" is still the main value proposition for Lightning, not privacy.
Because LN has the potential to gather the largest anonymity set, it could be more private than any "privacy-only cryptocurrency network".
That's very debatable. In terms of BTC, lightning has ~5,000 BTC, which is ~$150M. Monero, with a circulating supply of 18M XMR, has an equivalent of ~99,447 BTC. It's much better in terms of anonymity set. I said "has the potential" to gather the largest anonymity set, which I believe it could. |
|
|
|
They're a little bit late, but it's better late than never. I'm surprised it took them so long to integrate it since Binance is the biggest exchange. Late? I believe not, ser. It's still very early days for Lightning. We don't know what LN can really be for the users yet, in my opinion. Is it merely for fast, cheap, peer to peer transactions? Or could it be a privacy layer for Bitcoiners? I read a write up saying that Splicing was the answer to make Lightning more private. I also believe that there will be larger demand for more channels and liquidity in Lightning - IF it were to become Bitcoin's own privacy layer. Because LN has the potential to gather the largest anonymity set, it could be more private than any "privacy-only cryptocurrency network". |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
