There are no centralized stablecoins that are safe, they are even worse because the rate at which these entities track your wallet is worse than that of the normal banks, people will argue that they bring liquidity and reduce barriers of entry but the risk of using them outweigh the reward, my concern is why are these DEXes making USDC their major stablecoin, they must have been bought or stack ignorance on their path
DEXs have no other choice, especially when even the so-called decentralized stablecoins (like DAI) have USD reserves on a bank. Everything is centralized, except algorithmic stablecoins (although they're also subject to failure). There's no reason to be concerned about this, since stablecoins are just "experimental versions" of digital Fiat currencies. You get what you pay for. If you want to be safe, just sell your crypto for cash. No need to convert to a stablecoin unless you're day trading or want to stake on "De-Fi" platforms. Government regulations will become stricter, so there's hope stablecoin issuers will take more responsibility against customer losses in the future. Maybe stablecoins will get to live alongside CBDCs for generations? Just my thoughts  |
|
|
|
To be honest, I dislike the drama surrounding the US stance on crypto. If they are against it, they could simply ban it without all the fuss. However, it seems they are determined to regulate it in order to ensure that taxes are paid. If they truly intended to ban it, they would have plenty of reasons to do so.
The US is standing on "both waters". On one hand, it wants to regulate crypto for taxation purposes. And on the other hand, it wants to ban it with the excuse that crypto is being used to "evade sanctions". Some other countries are in the same boat as the US (although the US has taken a more aggressive approach after the collapse of FTX). With CBDCs on the brink of launch, we should expect more regulatory pressure against the crypto industry. There's nothing we can do about this if we want to "keep governments happy". Otherwise, crypto would become illegal for mainstream use anywhere in the world. As I've stated before, all that matters is decentralization and censorship-resistance. As long as that is preserved, no government should be able to "stop the revolution". Crypto has gone a long way since day one (especially Bitcoin), so I'm confident it'll do fine in the midst of government oppression. Who knows if it "beats" Fiat sometime in the future? Just my opinion  |
|
|
|
Are you saying that using the network for something is "littering" it? I am astonished that people see that as littering. Like hundreds of thousands of fungible tokens and bots buying and selling them wouldn't be littering.
Thing is, if a blockchain can be "littered" by something, then maybe the problem is in the blockchain and not people using it. The whole point of it is that ANYONE can use it. If they didn't do the math on people actually using it and flooding it, then the problem is in the platform design itself. Not on the people "using it wrong"
And we totally see what function nfts have and is and it's a multi billion dollar market so i am not sure what you are trying to say.
Blockchains are designed to accept anything they're thrown at them, as long as the user is willing to pay a fee. The more transactions submitted at the same time, the higher the network fees will be. "Littering" would be an issue if the Blockchain didn't had any fees. That would give the spammer ample room to do whatever he wants without being penalized in the long run. Blocking NFTs on the Blockchain, would bring us back to the era of censorship. We should encourage openess and decentralization to make crypto different from banks. I don't think NFTs are a passing trend, especially when there are some of them that are actually useful and/or valuable. If NFT creators host them on decentralized CDNs, they could last a lifetime. Who knows if maybe Arweave and IPFS are used to preserve NFT data in the future? Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
you do realise POOL MANAGERS take most the fee's not the asic owners(most pools share payments are the main reward not the fee element)
you do realise POOL MANAGERS can spend their own income in their own block templates(not zero confirm relay) where they give themselves a high fee(returning funds to themselves AT NO COST) but causing the crappy fee estimator of EVERYONE ELSE to be high
as for you saying if everyone else does not like it .. they should avoid asking for it to be fixed and instead use another network.. are you seriously that central point adoring that you want devs to be paid to break bitcoin by corporations that created altnets that you want them to tell devs what do do and not the decentralised userbase..
where you just want everyone that wants a decentralised monetarian system to instead opt and move over to a crappy network that has middle men payment providers(routers)
seriously. you are reading the wrong hymn sheets and you are not thinking about whats best for bitcoin. but whats best for corporations/businesses.. which means you are the one that loves the "banking" model
Yes, I'm aware of that. Pools are the ones that get all of the profits for themselves, while individual miners are left behind in the dust. These entities won't approve a hard fork, especially when it's in their best interests to make as much money as possible from the Ordinals craze. I've realized it's best to leave Bitcoin as is if we want to keep it decentralized and open to anyone. Hard forking the chain means you're approving censorship on the Blockchain (which is something banks do with transactions they don't like or deem suspicious). And we all know that censorship harms innovation/growth in the long run. Things have settled a bit lately, so there's nothing to worry about. In the worst case scenario, you could just switch to an altcoin with lower fees (eg: Litecoin, Tron, etc) for complete peace of mind. But you won't get the same level of decentralization and censorship-resistance Bitcoin has. Ultimately, you decide what to do with your crypto. As long as decentralization wins, nothing else matters.  |
|
|
|
It’s very frustrating but meme coin season peaked & seems to be phasing out. The issue with bitcoin fees due to ordinals & BRC20 spam has also seemingly peaked.
We should see gas fees really plummet soon. I hope to see them slashed to at least 50% of what they currently are in the coming months.
There are a lot of worthless "meme" coins on both Ethereum and Bitcoin blockchains (especially ETH). How can we expect gas fees to decline when the network is being flooded with "meme" coins like crazy? Either developers scale the Blockchain by introducing network upgrades, or everyone moves to off-chain (L2) scaling solutions altogether. The hype won't last forever, so there's hope fees will get cheaper soon. If you're in a hurry, you can use an L2 scaling solution such as Arbitrum or Optimism to save big on gas fees. Or you can use an alternative Blockchain network such as BNB or TRX for complete peace of mind. It would be a "miracle" if Vitalik Buterin and his team manage to solve the "Blockchain Trilemma". That would make ETH the best solution for everything. Good things take time to build, so I have no hurry to see this happen anytime soon. Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
Since it's illegal in both Germany and US to run an unlicensed money transmitter service, and ChipMixer was running in just about both countries, it's pretty much certain that it did break the law.
I have nowhere stated that there are no laws that prohibit such activity. I have merely argued there is no law that prohibits mixing, which is true as far as I'm concerned. In no court have I ever seen mixing being equated to some unlicensed money transmitting service's product. You can practically mix coins yourself, with absolutely no other users, even though it's not recommended for your privacy. But it is, and can obfuscate in an extent. Coinjoining is neither money transmitting.
Protocols themselves can't be classified as "money transmitting businesses". They're decentralized (non-custodial) by design. The law only applies to individuals running a mixing service all by themselves (centralized, custodial). I guess that's the reason why the US government has been hunting down centralized crypto mixers lately. If mixer operators had a "money transmitting license" and followed KYC/AML rules, they would've nothing to fear. But that would greatly undermine a user's privacy/anonymity. Thus, decentralized (non-custodial) mixing would become the norm in the future. I'm fine with that as long as financial freedom and privacy is preserved. Just my opinion |
|
|
|
My basis is that it is all managed by one company and companies bankrupt. That is as simple as that, it is centralized and there is just one company behind it all and they could bankrupt tomorrow all I know and I do not want to be part of it when it does.
I understand not many people think the same way and some thing that it will do fine but I do not share the same feeling, I feel like that is going to be something much different and there is a good chance that we could end up with something much worse. I know that tether as a company could go down in a second and we could end up with something that would be a lot worse and I personally do not want to be a part of it and try to avoid it as much as I can and not own any of it ever.
That's the real issue here. It's not like stablecoins are insured by the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation of the US). They're privately-issued digital currencies subject to failure. The issuing company could either go bankrupt, face prosecution from the government, or even lose all of its money due to hacks and/or theft. If one of these unfortunate events happen, you can say bye-bye to your life savings for good. I'd recommend you cash out for Fiat instead of investing in a stablecoin to minimize losses as much as possible. Stablecoins like USDT and USDC are only a "temporary solution" meant to make traders' lives easier. The real deal would be CBDCs. Just wait until they launch for them to take over the world by storm. Who knows if Tether (USDT) ultimately becomes history? Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
NFT's would only make sense if the law, specifically the copyright laws included NFT's to be seen as legitimate ownership contracts. But no law in the world is enforcing or admitting the rights of NFT-owners to be owners of the actual artwork behind the NFT. So there is absolutely no point in owning an NFT other than to flaunt the fact that you threw your money away for something which has no value and only an inherent rarity as the standard of speculational value.
For some reason there exist just enough idiots in the world to still buy NFTs. Which may raise the question of if they will last forever. I hope not but maybe yes.
I'm talking about NFT content (data) being preserved for generations by using a decentralized storage solution. Not the trend itself. NFT creators are only focused on making money, instead of what truly matters most. The vast majority of NFTs have their data stored on centralized servers. If the server goes down, you will lose everything in an instant. What will appear on the Blockchain is just proof that you own the NFT. But that's it. People are wasting their time and money in things that won't last forever. Unless NFT creators host the content on decentralized storage solutions such as IPFS, Sia, or Storj, don't expect NFTs to be taken seriously anytime soon. Who knows what the future holds for this nascent industry? Just my opinion |
|
|
|
I don’t think a hard fork will happen as a result of Ordinals. I think it would show bias towards projects that would be hard to defend going forward without also disabling the Lightning network. It’s a major problem in my opinion if the developers are able to censor transactions for any project they don’t deem as important as their own.
In other words, rejecting Ordinals transactions would bring censorship to the Blockchain. Bitcoin is decentralized and open to anyone, so why go ahead and block something you (developers) don't like? This would make BTC no different than banks. If people are not happy with the high fees, they could either make their own fork off the BTC blockchain or simply switch to an alternative chain with lower fees. The market will eventually decide the optimum network fees that will benefit both miners and users alike. Fees can't stay high forever, anyways. Things have settled a bit lately, so there should be nothing to worry about. I've read something about Bitcoin Stamps which are even better than Ordinals inscriptions. I really hope they don't become extremely popular, or fees will go high again. No one can predict what's going to happen with Bitcoin in the future, so we can only hope for the best. Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
Campaign paid.
Got it! Thanks again!  |
|
|
|
@Abiky. Have you read this news article? Uncle Gary and the SEC are already starting to open discussions on an implementation of a rule that only approved custodians are allowed to hold your cryptocoins and tokens. This will disable not your keys, not your coins and expect holders to give all trust to their approved custodians.The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) went too far when it proposed a new rule demanding investment firms safeguard all of their clients’ assets – including crypto – with approved custodians, according to an array of critics not often in alignment.Source https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2023/05/09/sec-blasted-on-custody-proposal-by-jpmorgan-crypto-firms-and-a-fellow-agency/That's very bad. If the SEC achieves this, crypto would become no different than traditional stocks. After all, one of the main advantages of crypto is financial sovereignity and personal freedom. By leaving crypto funds to an "approved custodian", we're introducing the middleman into the crypto/Blockchain space. Of course, crypto will still be decentralized. But most on/off ramps are controlled by centralized exchanges, so people won't have a way to buy/sell crypto without dealing with the "middleman issue". I'm hoping Congress makes a vote to remove Gary Gensler from office. It'll be good for the US-based crypto industry in the long run. Otherwise, this would be the end of crypto in America as we know it. If things go south, I believe US-based crypto customers will move to other countries with a friendly stance towards the industry. This means more taxes for foreign countries and a huge loss for the United States in the future. Just my opinion |
|
|
|
Q Blockchain fixes this. It has reverse gas fees so you never need to worry about gas fees after you initially deposit some Q. Gas fees are redistributed to holders instead of strictly going to validators like other chains.
Never heard of it. But actually giving users a "rebate" for every gas fee paid, sounds like a good idea to me. Why not even remove network fees altogether? TRX, EOS, STEEM, and NANO have zero fees which makes them useful for "De-Fi". There's even a new Blockchain network called "ThunderCore" with near-instant transaction processing times. With many options available on the market, high gas fees would only become a thing of the past. ETH won't stay expensive forever anyways, so sit tight and wait as the best is yet to come. Who knows if a sudden decline in network fees will boost mainstream adoption for ETH like never before? Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
It won't result in a hard fork soon. More transactions in mempools than days ago but no more very high fee rates like days ago. https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#BTC%20(default%20mempool),30d,weightSo the problem comes from how people understand the issue and use fee rate. If they keep escalating fee rates, they will escalate it to infinity. Do they want infinity fee rate? I believe at some expensive fee rate, they will stop like how people rejected to make transactions on Ethereum blockchain with too expensive Gwei or they just don't have enough money for too expensive fee. They can not make transaction with $100 in fee and only have $20 to buy some BRC20 token. I hope that turns out to be the case in the long run. Bitcoin cannot afford losing market value with another hard fork. You can see how both BCH and BSV hard forks took a large portion of BTC's market share when they came into inception sometime ago. Fortunately, fees on the BTC blockchain are declining. People will ultimately decide the fees to pay, leaving miners no choice but to go along with the "fee market". It's the way this works. Let's see how long will the "Ordinals craze" last as people move on to the next big thing in crypto. Maybe all of those worthless NFTs will move to a sidechain in the future? Just my opinion |
|
|
|
In addition to Arweave, which is my go-to blockchain storage solution, it appears as if you've missed out on the whole "ordinals" thing which started on Bitcoin and has also moved to Litecoin. Image (or other) data can be uploaded into the witness space of a transaction (known as an "inscription") and assigned to an individual satoshi (known as an "ordinal"). The ordinals can then be transferred around from wallet to wallet, granted you know how to practice coin control.
Some Ethereum NFT image data is indeed stored on that chain, I don't know a whole lot about it.
Additionally you have the Stamps protocol which is much more limited in size but allow for image uploading to Bitcoin and Dogecoin.
On-chain data seems like it would solve the problems caused by a centralized hosting service but its still a sticky wicket. Lots of things to consider still about their permanence.
Indeed. Ordinals NFTs are completely stored on the BTC blockchain for long-term data preservation. But the biggest downside is that it causes network fees to rise like crazy. Developers should always aim for off-chain scaling solutions or even sidechains if they're really serious about making NFTs last forever without bloating the Blockchain. I see NFTs as a passing trend meant to test the Blockchain's capabilities to its fullest. What will actually become useful are tokenized assets and Soulbound Tokens (SBT). Just wait until the next bull market for these new trends to take over the crypto world by storm. The NFT hype is slowly fading away, so it should only be a matter of time before they become history. Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
I'm guessing the scratches are fine enough from just general wear. I know for sure with some patience you could erase the scratches with what we call "wet and dry" sandpaper . . . What? I hear you ask! Used wet this sandpaper is available in super super fine grades up to 7000 grit. I can safely say this would work. When using wet the water helps to keep loose particles free from the surface and the paper making for a superior finish. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Precision-Polishing-Sanding-Abrasive-Sandpaper/dp/B075L2D9HGI would suggest using a sacrificial piece to test the result first though! Thanks for the tip. I will try this method on my PCGS-graded coin slabs (non-crypto collectibles) just to be safe. Other members suggested me to ask for a replacement slab from ICG, which is exactly what I'll be doing. Acrylic coin slabs are easily scratched, so the best way to protect them would be to place then inside a plastic ziplock bag and forget about the rest. I want to keep my collectibles in pristine condition, especially if plan to sell them for profit sometime in the future. Now the real deal would be protecting the slabs against fire and water, but I think placing them on plastic storage boxes (like the ones made by Pelican) would definitely do the trick. Wish me luck! |
|
|
|
Thanks for the tip. It seems that I've no other choice. Will be contacting the publisher today. Wish me luck! |
|
|
|
However, look at how the other known stablecoins behaved compared to USDT. USDT performed better than other coins during the market crash of 2022 and during the de-peg of USDC in 2023. No matter how they bury it, it shows in practice that it is the best, even better than DAI, which has been a complete disappointment this year. USDT proves once again that it is much more reliable than other stablecoins, no matter what great models they have for securing their reserves.
I'm curious to know how USDT managed to retain its peg even during the US banking crisis in March. Maybe it's because the issuer of the stablecoin has USD reserves on muliple banks spread throughout the world? Or maybe it's artificially "pumping" USDT's market price to keep it at $1? Whatever the issuing company is doing will be revealed in the long run. If USDT remains valued at $1 forever, then I don't see why you should avoid it in the first place. Like it or not, regulations are coming in. Let's see if Tether will ultimately comply, or fall behind in the dust as other stablecoins take the lead. Just my opinion |
|
|
|
Mass adoption won't happen until regulators take over the entire industry and all supposedly decentralized protocols cooperate with regulators and governments. Until the entire industry is centralized, governments will not rest and will raid the industry, whether it's a service or cryptocurrency. A lot of decentralized and anonymous services have disappeared from the industry lately, some close down and then reopen, but with changed rules. KYC is becoming more and more embedded in the lives of crypto users.
That would make crypto no different than the traditional banking system powered by Fiat. It's unfortunate the industry is leading towards full centralization, but there's nothing we can do about it if we want governments to "legitimize" crypto/Blockchain tech. If we embrace full decentralization, then all of the world's governments will make it "illegal" for anyone to use crypto. We have to accept the fact that regulations are inevitable, no matter how much hardcore crypto enthusiasts like me hate them. Some countries will regulate crypto more than others, but at least we get to use decentralized cryptocurrencies without restrictions (sort of). Who knows what the future holds for this nascent industry? Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
This won't happen because miners and most of the community won't care. However, now is a ripe time to start creating forked shitcoins that disable the possibility of NFTs and other crap, and dumping them on exchanges like it happened with all the previous forked shitcoins (BCH, BSV and so on). And then someone will create forked shitcoins with even more NFT integration to dump them too. So maybe we'll see a repeat of the previous Bitcoin fork craze that created a lot of airdrops for Bitcoin hodlers.
Miners are cashing out big time, so the odds of having another Bitcoin-based hard fork are pretty slim. I'm hoping the spammers targeting Bitcoin with useless NFTs move to other chains with plenty of transaction capacity to handle anything they're thrown at them. Fees on BTC will rise to a point where it'll become economically unfeasible for spammers to continue flooding the Blockchain with Ordinals inscriptions. We just need to be patient to see great results in the long run. In the meantime, I'd suggest you use an alternative cryptocurrency with lower fees to avoid "breaking the bank". That is if you're planning on spending BTC every once in a while. Else, keep on "hodling" until the tide is over. Who knows if there will be brigher days ahead for Bitcoin? Just my opinion |
|
|
|
You have understood correctly but when you are starting from the point that they should last forever, you have to adjust your expectations. Storing content in blockchain itself would be highly impractical, that's why people are buying data that can point to url etc. IPFS is pretty good solution to store the data.
Nothing lasts forever, especially not altcoins or tokens, nfts are no different from this. People are buying skins to games, those are only going to be valuable as long the game has players. Same goes with nfts, there is always a centralized element in crypto when you think about it, and that's the community. At any point they can just leave. That is true with every crypto currency out there. That point it doesn't matter where your picture or what ever is stored in.
There never has been any guarantees in this space. But if you pick a right community and right nfts you can be pretty sure that they last more than most altcoins.
IPFS, Sia, and Storj would be the only solutions to help preserve the content of NFTs "forever". Most developers/NFT creators are often focused on making money with NFTs, so this would be the least priority for them. I see NFTs as something temporary that are only meant to "test" the Blockchain's capabilities. The next big thing would be Soulbound Tokens (SBT) which are merits, karma, and certifications/diplomas earned by a person stored completely on the Blockchain. Another trend that will take off would be the digitalization of real world assets. Everything from Gold to Diamonds and Real Estate would be "tokenized" on the Blockchain. These will eventually replace NFTs as the next big thing in crypto. But if their content will be stored on centralized servers too, then we'll be getting nowhere. The future is widely unpredictable, so we can only hope for the best. Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
