I'm not following the whole USDT drama, to me it's just like another alt/shitcoin, i.e. if anything, people would try to escape into BTC when it crashes. Of course it can take down some exchanges, but if you keep your BTC on exchanges thats the risk that you're taking
It may be unfashionable to think it, but I don't really believe there is one any more. Even if at one point it was money out of thin air, and there's no proof either way, they've likely earned it back now. It's going to be a forever mystery I reckon that's rolled out every now and then for a quick scare. Again, so if someone created some airTokens and managed to find someone else to sell their BTC for these tokens, i fail to see how crashing airTokens would effect anyone besides the airToken bag holders (not counting indirect effects of failing exchanges and overall negative publicity from people not capable of differentiating between airtokens and BTC) |
|
|
|
I'm not following the whole USDT drama, to me it's just like another alt/shitcoin, i.e. if anything, people would try to escape into BTC when it crashes. Of course it can take down some exchanges, but if you keep your BTC on exchanges thats the risk that you're taking |
|
|
|
Hi I’m new here . Who the fuck is this roach geezer . What a complete asshole. Why does everyone put up with his shit?
Edit:weeeee
our legendary troll. did you just create new account for asking this here? or are you him?  Yes a new account . No I’m not him . I’m also known as bitcoinpsycho There's an ignore button next to his/her name that's been clicked more times than google.com and also on anyone that quotes him/her |
|
|
|
BTC Dominance: 40  Can we get a new poll, at which price point will the miners run out of spare funds to support bcash? |
|
|
|
Finex leveraged longs are still at $700MM  i wanna see them under $500MM. Can we absorb $200MM sell off? |
|
|
|
Finally some way overdue competition. Bitmain's monopoly coming to an end and hopefully so is the funding for their bcash side project. |
|
|
|
Ok, which one of you ordered the large green dildo ?
I'll have two or three on weekly chart, please Well this is refreshing |
|
|
|
Uh, realdoll.com has been around for over a decade. Not my cup of tea, and there's plenty of copies now. Don't forget the repair kit. I'd hate to be the guy providing on site support for this. |
|
|
|
|
BTC2300 in bids till $7k on Finex, looks like its hodling for now
|
|
|
|
...going flat for expended period of time is not healthy...
That's not true. Nothing wrong with flat (or even declining) hashrate as long as decentralization of miners improves or at least stays constant. Meh. A more decentralized high hash rate is more resistant to centralization pressures than an equally decentralized lower hash rate. True but a major BTC miner going offline/bankrupt and its equipment being resold through the courts would cause a hashrate drop but potentially increase decentralization But ultimately once the Moore's law hits ASICs i do foresee a flatter hashrate charts. |
|
|
|
By the time 9am NY time rolls in, we may be firmly below $7,000. The market is just shit right now.
BeeCash is already under $900 There's always a silver lining. Yep high BTC prices is the only thing keeping bcash alive. When miners start cost cutting bcash would be first on the chopping block. Wish i shorted it at the 32GB blocks hype. The implosion and race to bag dropping should be spectacular! Edit: BTC is at 40% |
|
|
|
...going flat for expended period of time is not healthy...
That's not true. Nothing wrong with flat (or even declining) hashrate as long as decentralization of miners improves or at least stays constant. |
|
|
|
You can donate to Jewish National Fund here https://www.jnf.org/donateWho thinks that i should take up a crusade and dedicate all of my free time to get them to accept BTC instead of trolling this forum? Good for you roach something constructive to do with your free time and might help BTC |
|
|
|
Unfortunately, there is nothing to prevent someone from building a layer on top of a blockchain and issuing tokens that are supposed to be backed by deposits and then running a fractional reserve. (Many accuse Tether of doing just that.) Furthermore, blockchains have difficulty scaling. That is why BTC has resorted to the lightning network to attempt to address the scaling problem.
So BTC is a solution, but it's really not a solution because someone can come up with a different solution on top of BTC which wouldn't really be a solution at all, thus making underlying BTC not a solution. Think i got it. And then BTC is having problem scaling so that's why they introduced a scaling solution called LN. Did i get it right? If the solution you want is to totally prevent people from running fractional reserves, then no, the blockchain is not the solution. Perhaps if you could cram all of the functionality onto the blockchain itself it may be a solution. However, when you try to cram all of the functionality onto the blockchain itself, you run into a scaling issue. You can get a blockchain to scale, but this always comes at the cost of the network being more centralized. Oh ok i think you cleared it up now, but just to make sure, so it's impossible to cram every possible functionality in any system, and it's also impossible to prevent a derivatives market based on any underlying asset. And since BTC exists in our faulty universe BTC is burdened with the restrictions that apply to every other system. Thus we draw a conclusion that BTC is a failed experiment and will die? I believe the scientific name for this argument is 'R0ach logic' Did I ever state that BTC is a failed experiment? Or is that what is implied whenever someone dare states that the blockchain and BTC are not the end all be all solution to everything. Well, since you kept using straw men logic i figured i'd throw an obvious one as well in case you cannot counter any other points i make. BTC has many valid attack vectors. Like centralization, why not use that and propose solutions to improve miner decentralization instead of your silly attempts at claiming that it can be used at running fractional reserve. Where bitserve literally just outlined how BTC part can be easily audited in few simple steps. Edited |
|
|
|
...
It's not only for "security". As soon as you are not running fractional reserve on crypto you are not lowering the price of it. It's ok to me if every (or any, for starters) exchange is forced to proof they hodl the real btc balance. And as I said, it could also be complemented with a bank balance certificate of FIAT funds in the "traditional" way.
See my edit above |
|
|
|
Oh please. the way banknotes started in the first place is merchants wanted to store their gold at a bank, rather than lugging it around themselves or setting up their own fort and small militia to protect it. Then they were issued a piece of paper, a banknote. When the bankers discovered people were using the banknotes like money, they discovered a way to loan people paper and run a fractional reserve. It doesn't matter what medium you use as money. Someone is going to find a way to put them self in the middle and exact their usurious fees. Or just plain use force or stealth and outright steal your bounty.
Interestingly, the first technology to be developed since the advent of fractional reserve banking that actually has a real chance of putting a stop to most of the double counting of reserve assets is... drum-roll... blockchain!Except not even exchanges are currently using that "feature". Thanks to blockchain exchanges could be already guaranteeing they don't run fractional reserve. It would be as simple as this: - Every exchange user is given a "unique private identifier". - Every day, the exchange publish a balance sheet that comprises a listing of all UPI's and its individual balances. The total is the minimum amount of reserves the exchange must control to prove absence of fractional reserve "banking". - Simultaneously the exchange publish a listing of addresses which individual balances (can be checked on their respective blockchains for accuracy) sum, at least, the total needed. Obviously they sign a timestamped code with those addresses to prove ownership. - Individual users could check their balances are included and accounted for in the balance sheet. ... But not a single one exchange is still doing this. Wonder why..... Because since fiat reserves cannot be verified in this manner, you're going through all this trouble to only verify 50% of your reserves. Meaning they can still theoretically run 50% fractional reserve but now you'd have that warm comforting feeling that those number mean something that they really don't. Being able to verify they are not running fractional reserve on crypto alone would be a great advantage. Also, FIAT funds can be proved by a signed and stamped bank statement. It could be forged yeah.... but, anyways, the FIAT reserves of the exchanges, being stored in bank accounts, are ALREADY being subject to fractional reserve by the banks itself  Do you really not think an exchange that proofs daily that they have all the crypto they are suppossed to have would not be a big improvement to current system? I'm an exchange, you deposit BTC100 with me and r0ach deposits his 2643940 shekels. I buy a lambo i mean get "hacked" for BTC50. I go to another exchange and purchase BTC50 with roaches 1321970 shekels. And at the end of the day i can still provide verifiable proof that i hold BTC100 which corresponds to my balance sheet. Yay for false sense of security!! Partial audits are pretty useless. Now this possibly could work on those crypto only exchanges, that's the future we hope to have one day Edit: Oh and i also go to another bank and take a loan out for 1321970 shekels, and deposit it in the first bank and provide a legit statement of the full 2643940 shekels in the first bank. Never mind my 1321970 shekel liability to the 2nd bank. Unfortunately fiat is untraceable thats why all the drug cartels, pimps, and war lords use it, would be awesome to replace it with something better |
|
|
|
Good roach it's like you're almost relevant in this form! |
|
|
|
Oh please. the way banknotes started in the first place is merchants wanted to store their gold at a bank, rather than lugging it around themselves or setting up their own fort and small militia to protect it. Then they were issued a piece of paper, a banknote. When the bankers discovered people were using the banknotes like money, they discovered a way to loan people paper and run a fractional reserve. It doesn't matter what medium you use as money. Someone is going to find a way to put them self in the middle and exact their usurious fees. Or just plain use force or stealth and outright steal your bounty.
Interestingly, the first technology to be developed since the advent of fractional reserve banking that actually has a real chance of putting a stop to most of the double counting of reserve assets is... drum-roll... blockchain!Except not even exchanges are currently using that "feature". Thanks to blockchain exchanges could be already guaranteeing they don't run fractional reserve. It would be as simple as this: - Every exchange user is given a "unique private identifier". - Every day, the exchange publish a balance sheet that comprises a listing of all UPI's and its individual balances. The total is the minimum amount of reserves the exchange must control to prove absence of fractional reserve "banking". - Simultaneously the exchange publish a listing of addresses which individual balances (can be checked on their respective blockchains for accuracy) sum, at least, the total needed. Obviously they sign a timestamped code with those addresses to prove ownership. - Individual users could check their balances are included and accounted for in the balance sheet. ... But not a single one exchange is still doing this. Wonder why..... Because since fiat reserves cannot be verified in this manner, you're going through all this trouble to only verify 50% of your reserves. Meaning they can still theoretically run 50% fractional reserve but now you'd have that warm comforting feeling that those number mean something that they really don't. |
|
|
|
Unfortunately, there is nothing to prevent someone from building a layer on top of a blockchain and issuing tokens that are supposed to be backed by deposits and then running a fractional reserve. (Many accuse Tether of doing just that.) Furthermore, blockchains have difficulty scaling. That is why BTC has resorted to the lightning network to attempt to address the scaling problem.
So BTC is a solution, but it's really not a solution because someone can come up with a different solution on top of BTC which wouldn't really be a solution at all, thus making underlying BTC not a solution. Think i got it. And then BTC is having problem scaling so that's why they introduced a scaling solution called LN. Did i get it right? If the solution you want is to totally prevent people from running fractional reserves, then no, the blockchain is not the solution. Perhaps if you could cram all of the functionality onto the blockchain itself it may be a solution. However, when you try to cram all of the functionality onto the blockchain itself, you run into a scaling issue. You can get a blockchain to scale, but this always comes at the cost of the network being more centralized. Oh ok i think you cleared it up now, but just to make sure, so it's impossible to cram every possible functionality in any system, and it's also impossible to prevent a derivatives market based on any underlying asset. And since BTC exists in our faulty universe BTC is burdened with the restrictions that apply to every other system. Thus we draw a conclusion that BTC is a failed experiment and will die? I believe the scientific name for this argument is 'R0ach logic' |
|
|
|
Interestingly, the first technology to be developed since the advent of fractional reserve banking that actually has a real chance of putting a stop to most of the double counting of reserve assets is... drum-roll... blockchain!
I'm sorry. I don't subscribe to your point of view either. All I have seen in the 4 years in this cryptocurrency space is scam after scam and scheme after scheme. There is no salvation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPVpMxVn6mkOk what If I modify my statement a bit. Interestingly, the first technology to be developed since the advent of fractional reserve banking that actually has a real chance is theoretically technologically capable of putting a stop to most of the double counting of reserve assets is... drum-roll... blockchain! Would you disagree that it is a tool that is, at least in theory, capable of combating this in a meaningful way? If so, would you agree that it is the first technology that has ever been invented that is potentially capable of doing this? The main reason that we see so much scamminess in this space is that blockchain is largely about censorship resistance, which is for the most part only needed by people who would be censored, and, big surprise, it turns out that a lot of the people who would have been censored are people who would have been up to no good. IMAGINE THAT! Anyway, just because that sort of thing is the lowest hanging fruit and so developed out first, I don't think this means that blockchain technology will never find legitimate use cases in safeguarding against scams (like the double counting of precious metals reserves). 4 years is not a long time, it is a flash in the pan. Unfortunately, there is nothing to prevent someone from building a layer on top of a blockchain and issuing tokens that are supposed to be backed by deposits and then running a fractional reserve. (Many accuse Tether of doing just that.) Furthermore, blockchains have difficulty scaling. That is why BTC has resorted to the lightning network to attempt to address the scaling problem. So BTC is a solution, but it's really not a solution because someone can come up with a different solution on top of BTC which wouldn't really be a solution at all, thus making underlying BTC not a solution. Think i got it. And then BTC is having problem scaling so that's why they introduced a scaling solution called LN. Did i get it right? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
