Then why do you seem more concerned with the outcome than steklomoy themselves?  Why are "they" not here asking for their account to be unblocked?

Maybe consider dropping the charade that steklomoy isn't your account. 

Not even a scam.   

At the very least, it can be called a broken promise.  It was launched under the assertion that 1 USDT would be backed by 1 USD and this is no longer the case.  The goalposts have been dramatically moved because a company couldn't keep its word.  There are no guarantees they won't change things for the worse again.  People are just too trusting and complacent to see it for the ticking time-bomb it is.  Tether, the company, are now in a position where they can see most of the people trading their IOUs couldn't care less when they print another billion or two into existence, so that's what they'll continue doing.

Bottom line:  If the public figurehead can't stay neutral, expect consequences.  They are a central point of failure, which not only does the coin not require, but would actually function better without.  In comparison, Bitcoin is arguably more resilient as a result of satoshi's departure.  Faketoshi Wright's antics can (and do) damage BSV's acceptance, which affects utility and resulting value.  This is a flaw they refuse to remedy.

Why would a sensible person consider using a coin that people might refuse to accept because they recognise that flaw?

How do you figure?  Granted, it's easier to trace than physical cash is.  But it gives you more privacy than a credit/debit card does.  The level of privacy you attain with Bitcoin is largely dependant on how you use it.



Who cares?  When a coin gets delisted from exchanges because the figurehead of that coin is creating drama and causing friction, that coin is obviously useless.  Having a lead developer is acceptable, but having some crazed cult personality to be a "public face" of the coin is completely misguided.  Any coin with a single individual holding that much influence over its acceptance is a weak cryptocurrency.  Ideally, there shouldn't be a figurehead at all, let alone one that's a habitual liar and gets involved in technical matters they clearly can't even comprehend.  If you put a clown at the helm, the coin is naturally going to be seen as a joke.

I'd argue it's too simplistic to say it's just one thing or the other.  There are a multitude of factors that all work in unison.  If you start removing certain ingredients, the value proposition changes.

It's both episodes. 

Can't find any youtube clips for that particular part of season 1 episode 6, but it's quoted on IMDB.

I'm also 100% certain about season 5 episode 2, since I just rewatched that episode to make sure, heh.

Since when is it logical to make bold claims about future events when you can't be sure?  Say things like "it has the potential for a 10x increase".  Don't just announce it as a foregone conclusion unless you have a time machine you haven't told us about.

It's all guesswork.  I'm sure there would be some volatility, but it's hard to tell which direction it would go.  It might also depend how abrupt the collapse is.  I suppose if it was a gradual collapse and people had time to get out of USDT, it might temporarily increase prices if people dump USDT in favour of BTC while considering which competing stablecoin they would use as a substitute.  A more sudden implosion would likely cause a loss of faith in crypto by many speculators and that might lead them to exit in the direction of their national currency, causing a price drop.

I think what the OP is saying is that their title got cut to 45 characters and then places an '&' at the end.  Their concern is that the '&' might have the potential to be used in a cross-site scripting attack.  I'm not a code guy, so I don't know if such a threat is real or not.


//EDIT:  Ah, you edited.   

If we're talking about performance, USD is not a safe haven.  Please stop offering "advice".  No one in their right mind should be listening to anything you say.

I mentioned it in a different topic, but 'Blindspot' (season 5, episode 2) had Bitcoin namedropped by Bill Nye.  Even said he was HODLing (or as least his character was).  It was referenced in earlier episodes too, but I don't recall which ones specifically.

//EDIT:  Might have been season 1 episode 6, but maybe double-check that.

Exactly.  Stablecoins are private or corporate wealth, whereas CBDCs (if they happen) will be national wealth.  The two will compete with each other for market share (but it's a different market share to that of Bitcoin and other non-backed crypto, because those serve an altogether different purpose), so holding corporate stablecoins could potentially cause you to lose money if CBDCs achieve dominance in that market.  And if any given nation does launch a CBDC, they have the notable advantage of being able to legislate against stablecoins, so it probably wouldn't be a fair fight.

Yes.  Even if there was a way to shut down the entire internet, we have nodes in space now.  Contrary to popular belief, a record of the blockchain can technically survive without the internet, albeit in a much reduced capacity.  I don't know if the satellites could be reconfigured to mine if required, but I'm sure someone clever could find a way.

Governments have the same issue with Bitcoin as they have with torrenting and other peer to peer filesharing.  They can declare it illegal, but that doesn't stop people doing it.  It's incredibly difficult for authorities to physically prevent the use of software.

As for bitcoin.org, nothing at protocol level relies on that domain name.  Bitcoin can function without it.  But it has been a longstanding focal point for the community.  It serves as a primary gateway for new users to discover Bitcoin.

Hope that helps.

That's certainly one way of saying "my ideas make sense to me, even if they make zero sense to anyone else".   

Just because you can envision a fantasy scenario where governments adopt stablecoins, that means nothing to the cold, hard light of reality.  Stating that you think your dreams will come true without providing any evidence to substantiate such an assertion isn't generally considered logical.



Okay, but you're not.  At least, I hope you're not.  What you are proposing could easily ruin an entire nation.  Stablecoins are COMPANIES.  Private wealth.  Meaning someone controls that wealth.  If you effectively place that person in a position of major influence over your national economy, some might say that would be an incredibly foolish thing to do.

Please take a break from posting opinions based on nothing more than a vivid imagination.  Instead, try asking questions.  You'll learn more that way.

Whether Bitcoin existed or not, the Dollar will end the Dollar's reign.   

Fiat currencies don't last forever.  They can't.  With all debt-based money, eventual failure is an integral part of the recipe.  It's just how they function.  Some last longer than others, but they will all approach worthless at some point.

I've always naturally assumed that bits will eventually become prevalent, since those who are only familiar with fiat are accustomed to having two decimal places.  But, since there's always the potential to add more decimal places if a hardfork ever takes place, I suppose it's only sensible to wait and see what emerges naturally.

Making it truly decentralised does still feel like a bit of a holy grail.  I used to think someone would solve it pretty quickly, but I'm slowly learning to temper those expectations.  It's not easy to combine the part where you want to have a peer-to-peer market where you can be paired with someone to actually make the swap with, plus the part where you want have it resistant to regulatory shutdown.  

So far, most people have tried to tackle the problem by developing a service, but the solution ideally needs to take the form of a protocol.  Not a simple conundrum to solve.

Someone said Paxos do (the ones who hold the coins for PayPal), but didn't cite a source, so I'm still not certain about that.  As far as I know, PayPal merely has the New York Bitlicence.

Yes, for once I'm actually inclined to agree with something you've said.  

I hope everyone reading this understands the importance that you read genuine issues from real people, rather than franky1's ridiculous made-up campfire stories.  The simple fact is, most losses on LN come from user error.  So do make sure you fully understand what you're doing before you use it.  But it avoids the situation where you're likely to suffer a total wipeout because of something someone else did, as is the case with custodians.  The responsibility is yours.  Then, once people have gained a decent understanding, they'll know that, while it's not a perfect solution, it's still by far the most viable option for those who want to use Bitcoin as a currency and spend it regularly.  Naturally, for those who are more of an accumulator/hodler, then it won't be particularly useful to them.

As always, franky1 believes me to be a blind fanatic, but this is not so.  I'm fully aware that Lightning has issues.  But sane and logical people will recognise that every shortcoming in the Lightning Network is a weakness that hasn't been introduced to the base protocol.  Whereas franky1's desired direction is to inject every possible compromise directly into Bitcoin and weaken it.  He's clearly a moron.  Pay him no mind.



I'm not a bodyguard.  Merely a fact-checker.  Dispelling abject lies is not "hyping up" Lightning.  I just call out the bullshit where I see it.  I'm not making any unrealistic claims.  

I'll state categorically that each user will have a different experience with routing transactions, as it will largely depend on how many people they know and how many they are likely to transact with.  If you know a whole bunch of people who use LN regularly, you're probably going to find it easier to avoid relying on any large "hubs".  But for people like franky1 (who probably has no friends because no one could spend more than half a minute in a room with him without feeling the urge to punch him square in the face due to him being inherently unlikable), they might struggle to route transactions.

Is that why you hate LN, franky1?  Does it do a great job of highlighting the issue where you're a repulsive waste of oxygen that people go out of their way to avoid?  Does it constantly remind you that you have no friends because you drove them all away by being so unbelievably obnoxious?

But anyway, the point is, some people will rely on larger hubs until there are more users.  But even having several large hubs is still an improvement over Bitcoin's early history.  Back in 2012/2013, a huge number of people primarily used the Mt.Gox exchange.  Some of us saw the warning signs and tried to warn people, but many just didn't listen.  The collapse of that one website caused absolute devastation to thousands of people.  And because it was fully custodial and centralised, the vast majority of the victims are still waiting for recompense all these years later.  Imagine how many affected users, due to that experience, vowed to never use Bitcoin again.  It was a major catastrophe that highlighted the issues with centralised fully-custodial services.  Some would argue we still haven't learned the lessons it should have taught us.  So... even -IF- the Lightning Network was as bad as franky1 claims it is, it still couldn't possibly be as bad as Gox or any of the present day exchanges or webwallets.  I don't believe Lightning will ever become fully custodial and I don't believe it would ever centralise into one giant hub that could fail.  So again, the responsibility is yours to use it wisely.  As such, I'm satisfied that it should continue to be developed and given space to grow and evolve.