The price dropped to $3k last year when ~all financial asset prices were crashing due to panic over covid.

The price of bitcoin hit a low on March 14, 2020, and on March 15, 2020, the Federal Reserve announced it was going to resume QE. The US stock market (QQQ) hit a local loc on March 23, 2020, which is the day the Federal Reserve announced it was going to increase its QE.

Do you really think AMC is worth $17 billion? It is a shrinking company whose market is shrinking, and its valuation is 55 times its last annual profit. Or what about BSV? It has a market cap of >$3 billion, and is a coin that can be 51%'ed for a few hundred grand per day, and has insane technical specs.

I think it is difficult to seriously argue that QE is not causing rampant financial speculation and inflation. Once this excessive QE ends, so will the financial speculation, and financial asset prices will fall.

I am not a troll, and I am a long-term believer in bitcoin. I am not going to disclose my current holdings, however, in the past, I have held both large amounts of bitcoin, and a stake in a major bitcoin-related business that will only succeed if bitcoin succeeds.

ronaldo40 is banned from displaying signatures until March 2022. He very clearly still has the ability to wear and change his avatar.

There are very few avatar campaigns out there that do not also require participants to wear a signature. I am not aware of anyone successfully participating in an avatar campaign that is banned from wearing a signature, so I don't think this is a pressing issue.

The CCP does not bribe whole institutions but rather bribes individual decision-makers who have a lot of influence.

Obviously, there is no smoking gun, and it is not reasonable to ask the NYT to disclose their private communications. However, the fact remains that multiple Western governments took the position in 2020 that covid came to the world via a lab leak, yet nearly all western news outlets dismissed this as false.

If the reason is not money paid by the CCP, then why do you think this is? You might argue this was due to an extreme bias against Trump, and they wanted to get the bad orange man out of office at any cost. If this is your argument, Trump was tougher on China than any other president in modern history.

I wonder if he even realized he was banned from wearing a signature. He was last active around the time the signature ban was implemented, and my guess is he was probably also fully banned for a period of time. He clearly applied for a spot on the signature campaign, and even started wearing the betking avatar.

Probably not. I think crypto exchanges have attracted too much money from various investors around the world for governments and regulators to stop ignoring them. Dealing with cryptocurrencies is like dealing in the Wild West. Exchanges engage in practices and offer products that would be disallowed in the world of the stock market.

Exchanges often comingle customer money with their own, they list coins in a non-transparent way. Some of the shady exchanges have fake volumes and allow traders to engage in practices that can reasonably be described as market manipulation.

I suspect that governments will regulate crypto exchanges in ways similar to how they regulate other financial markets. Regulators may have slightly different rules for crypto exchanges, but there will be regulations. Those exchanges that try to hide from regulators by doing things such as moving their headquarters repeatedly, or not allowing customers from major markets due to regulation, will eventually die out. They will be replaced by exchanges that are willing to follow regulations.

You are correct, but I believe the practice you describe is rare for people communicating on this forum, which is why I said "for most people on this forum".

In theory, a second key could be used to "freeze" and "unfreeze" outputs, which is separate from the key used to sign said inputs.

I don't see any reason why something like this would ever be implemented because it would result in additional transactions that are freezing and unfreezing outputs, and it would make keeping track of the UTXO set more complicated, both without any meaningful benefit.

Look at the post he quoted in the OP, in that same thread, the OP has posted multiple times, including this post.
As Poker Player alluded to above, the CCP does not have to worry about elections or what its people want when making decisions, and planning for the future.

I would not give the CCP credit for turning China into a major economic power. I think we have the Clinton administration and greedy corporate executives focused on short-term profit for that. The average income in China is about $14,550 per year, which is barely over the poverty level in the US for one person and is below the poverty level for two people living in a household.

The Chinese market is very large, and Western companies have invested billions, if not trillions of dollars in China. The CCP has demanded that western companies operate a joint venture in China that is majority-owned by a Chinese company. This has resulted in short-term profits for companies that have entered the Chinese marketplace, but at the expense of having their IP and other trade secrets stolen, that over the long term will result in greater losses for Western companies than what they made in the short run.

I would compare the CCP, and president Xi, to the Nazis and Hitler. Both have a goal of world domination, and both systematically killed and imprisoned a minority religious group, the Jews in the case of the Nazis, and the Uighurs in the case of the CCP. The key difference is that the CCP is much more patient than the Nazis were. The Nazis started a world war to attempt to achieve world domination, while the CCP has instead infiltrated institutions to make the world more friendly to the CCP. 

As a CCP apologist/propagandist, the OP should be condemned in the strongest way possible.

The CCP can only be described as an evil organization that oppresses over a billion people and whose goal is to oppress billions more. They commit mass murder and steal from billions.

I am already vaccinated, however, if I had to get the covid vaccine through BSV, I would likely become an anti-vaxxer, flat earther.

According to the article you cited, the 1000 limit of chained unconfirmed transactions is to allow things such as games to be played on the BSV blockchain. While interesting, I don't think there is a benefit to having every move every player makes in a game permanently recorded on a blockchain. As I noted, the miners should be able to quickly confirm many chains of 1000 unconfirmed transactions or any other spam attack on the BSV network.

Difficulty dealing with spam attacks is not limited to BSV or even altcoins. Bitcoin nodes run by 'normal' users had difficulty dealing with previous spam attacks against bitcoin. Even some of the major businesses had difficulty dealing with previous spam attacks.

There is nothing in this scenario that would cause the network hashrate to increase on its own. You are describing this as an attack, however it is something that would benefit all miners. As such, there is little reason why all miners would not participate via a cartel (something similar to how OPEC works for the oil markets).

The price of transaction always has been, and always will be measured in terms of BTC. If the price of BTC is too high, the market will respond accordingly.

I would also point out that your 1% transaction fee target is very high, even by traditional banking system standards. The cost of sending a wire transfer is at most $15 or $25 (if not waived), but it would be very unusual for someone to send a $2500 wire transfer. It is far more common for someone to send a six-figure wire transfer. It might cost $0.20 to write a check, but it would be very unusual to write a check for $20.

My prediction was intended to be below all other predictions so to be the catch all of bearish predictions.

I continue to believe there is a ridiculous amount of excess in financial markets, which is being caused by QE. Similarly, I believe that QE is causing inflation and is going to cause increased levels of inflation. This will ultimately mean that QE will need to stop and short term interest rates will need to increase. Both of the above will cause an unwinding of speculative bets in assets that includes bitcoin. This will make current levels of many asset classes to look like beyond the moon.

This does not speak to the long term potential for the price of bitcoin, but rather the price over the next several months.

It is possible that the fed allows inflation to get out of control, which would mean the above will be more pronounced, but will take longer.

While limited, there are ways to exchange coin between altcoins (or to bitcoin) without revealing your identity. Also, if you did something like prevent any other miner from finding a block that actually gets confirmed, it would be difficult to prove you were actually behind any kind of attack. If you make a futures bet, I don’t think there would have to be a connection between your bet and your attack.

---

I don’t see BSV getting stressed via a spam attack as it has a large max block size so any spam will be quickly mopped up by the miners.

If the block size limit is lowered, the cost per transaction increases. There is the potential that transaction fees in total will increase more than the block size limit will decrease. So lowering the limit would increase total transaction fee revenue.

As Danny explained, a miner can send a large (in terms of value) transaction to himself with zero transaction fee, effectively lowering the average transaction fee for that block at a very low cost.

If there were a situation in which bitcoin must have a dynamic block size limit, it would be superior to have the block size limit based on a sat/vByte basis. If the cost to include 200 bytes in a block becomes too high, the block size limit will increase, and if the cost to include 200 bytes in a block is too low, the maximum block size will decrease. This would make the mechanism for changing the block size to be consistent with how transactions are priced today. It would also make the manipulation as described by Danny less effective, although said manipulation would still be possible, as a miner could fill 30% of his block with zero-fee transactions to himself (or with transactions whose on-chain fee is zero, one party to the transaction has paid the miner via some off-chain means).

This is off-topic in this thread, however even if you are encrypting a message to someone, for most people on this forum, you are trusting that the administrator has not changed the displayed encryption key of the person you are interacting with. For example, I may make public an encryption key, 'ABC', however, it may be changed by the administration to 'DEF' and anytime anyone encrypts a message to encryption key 'DEF', the administration may automatically decrypt the message, store it for later reading, and encrypt the decrypted message to encryption key 'ABC'. Do I think the bitcointalk administration is doing anything like this? No, absolutely not, however, I would not rule it out on other forums, especially DNM forums.

Okay, good. If you use maximum measures to protect any third party from ever learning your private key, no third party will ever have the ability to spend any of your coin. No one can spend your coin without your private key. Your coin will be frozen until you sign and broadcast a transaction that spends your coin.

Many companies also utilize a "hot wallet" for smaller amounts whose private keys are stored on a computer connected to the internet, and a "cold wallet" for larger amounts whose private keys are stored on devices that never touch the internet. This setup is very similar to what you are asking for, as it is more difficult to spend any coin from the "cold wallet" and spending said coin requires additional steps.

This is why it is not a good idea to create an altcoin that uses the same mining algorithm as a coin that has a much larger hashrate. An adversary who wants to execute a 51% attack against bitcoin will end up seeing his equipment being worthless if his attack is successful, however an attacker who wants to use equipment to 51% attack BSV can use his equipment to mine bitcoin after his attack is over, and his only losses would be his lost revenue from when he was carrying out his attack.

In other words, BSV using the same mining algorithm as bitcoin means carrying out a 51% attack against BSV is much cheaper than it would be if BSV had its own mining algorithm.

The real money to be made from 51% attacks comes from the potential for double-spends, and from the financial markets. Someone who is preparing to execute a 51% attack could sell the ability to double-spend specific transactions ahead of time. They could also place bearish bets against a coin they are about to 51% attack before they start the attack with the advance knowledge the price will likely fall.


You have to factor in the block rewards you would receive if you were 51%'ing BSV, which is around $135k/day.

If all you are doing is preventing other miners from mining blocks, are confirming all transactions, and not allowing any double-spend transactions, the market may not notice, or care about your attack, and most other miners will simply stop mining BSV. This means you can, over time decrease the amount of hashrate dedicated to your attack.

I would imagine that mining all the blocks for a period of weeks, and suddenly stop mining on BSV would probably do a lot of damage as all of a sudden, the coin would have literally zero hashrate. You could even stop mining on BSV for a period of time, and when other miners start mining on BSV again, you could resume your attack, and prevent any of those miners from ever receiving a block reward.

Potential vaccine incentives will be funded via stimulus money given to state/local governments by the federal government. The money is ultimately from the federal government.

IMO, the main reason for vaccine hesitancy is due to the poor messaging by the Biden administration.

Bitcoin blocks will be found once every 10 minutes (on average), not to minimize orphan blocks, but in order to reach a compromise between having a quick confirmation time, and having a low number of reorgs/orphans.

There is an inverse relationship between the average block time and the number of reorgs. Similarly, there is an inverse relationship between the average actual block size and the number of reorgs -- this is not the maximum block size, but rather the size of blocks in practice.

You can calculate the expected percentage of reorgs that are one block deep by dividing the estimated amount of time between one miner finds a block and when another miner will start mining on top of the said newly found block, by the amount of time between blocks (on average).

Bitcoin might have a lower orphan rate than you might expect based on orphan rates of various altcoins, however, this is likely due to more resources being invested in miners being able to communicate with each other quickly, and resources dedicated to quickly verifying newly received blocks.

That is possible. I think some exchange executives might argue that having a fixed withdrawal fee provides for an improved customer experience, even if this means customers pay a higher fee -- for example, a customer will know how much it will cost him to withdraw prior to depositing.

I would also point out that automating anything involving servers that contain your hot wallet is risky. There is the potential your server will be tricked into paying enormously high fees. It also means your server will have to receive information directly from the internet. I imagine that major exchanges use servers that only connect to other servers on their local intranet that is used to create/sign withdrawal transactions. Obviously, eventually, the server will be connected to a server that is directly connected to the internet but compromising a chain of servers whose interactions are limited is more difficult than compromising a server directly connected to the internet. This is obviously not the same as having a cold wallet, but is also more secure than having your private keys in an unencrypted state in RAM on a computer directly connected to the internet.

Hmmm, Plagiarism?       🤔👩‍💻

The bumping changes should only affect the order of threads when default sorting is used. The OP is referring to threads sorted via custom criteria.