If one claims BTC BCH then they will be sent to the exchange I suppose.
I don't quite understand what you mean by this. Yes, Mt. Gox customers affected by the hacks will receive their rehabilitation claim in the form of fiat, and I don't think they will allow people to post claims for BCH/BTC. They are paying claims in fiat money, BTC and BCH. Any other cryptocurrencies like BSV will be liquidated into cash. According to the draft, they won't be purchasing any BTC or BCH to fulfill claims, so if current assets are insufficient those claims will be partially converted to cash. The reverse is not true. If fiat assets are insufficient to cover cash payments, the trustee plans to sell more bitcoins: Further, the draft rehabilitation plan, which is yet to be filed and approved in a court, added that the trustee also intends to allow BTC/BCH creditors to request payments in cash if desired.
"Consequently, a sufficient amount of cash must be secured as the source for distribution for both fiat currency claims and BTC/BCH claims for which cash payment is requested. For reasons including this, the Trustee may, with the permission of the court, sell all or part of the BTC/BCH constituting the Debtor's assets," the plan says.
Kobayashi said in the outline that the policy is "not to purchase additional BTC/BCH." Therefore, the existing BTC/BCH holdings may not be sufficient as a source for all claims in those assets. |
|
|
|
Now when a country prints money without looking at the inflation rate, it decreased the purchasing power of that currency which in turn creates hyper-inflation. We have two classic examples available, Zimbabwe and Venezuela. You can Google about it to know more. It remains to be seen what the inflation rate will look like in several years time. gmaxwell makes some good points as to why immediate inflation shouldn't be expected as a result of the stimulus, let alone hyperinflation. |
|
|
|
is there a possibility or any program would know what character (en,ru,chi,jpn,etc..) I've used to lock my wallet.dat on bitcoin core anyone who can answer would be a great relief for me I've seen some topic ago here on bitcointalk don't know if this by gavinandersen who's by his program would know if its a general ASII encoding locking this said wallet,
Kaonashi1993
I don't think so. That would require breaking AES-256, which is presently considered unbreakable by brute force. Non-ASCII characters are allowed, so you've got some very large word lists to consider. |
|
|
|
Perhaps it would help if we could outline an "identity" that we all agree on? People will probably argue for the rest of time on whether it's appropriate to call it a "currency", "asset", "digital gold", "safe haven", "store of value", or whatever other phrases get bandied about. Each and every one of those terms can conceivably be disputed depending on the current circumstances. We need a description no one can dispute. We'll never agree on one primary use case. Why don't we just call it "money?" The definition seems all-encompassing: The main functions of money are distinguished as: a medium of exchange, a unit of account, a store of value and sometimes, a standard of deferred payment. Gold and fiat currency are just different forms of money. Why can't the same idea apply to Bitcoin? Everything else is just marketing. |
|
|
|
Is that a valuable metric, if it doesn't line up with actual market prices?
What is market price if there is no fiat money like USD or EUR? And now FED has decided to print unlimited fiat money, what that market price reflect is the supply and demand of fiat money, not the actual goods. It is relatively easy to understand, if you don't do anything to a product, its value should be relatively stable over night, however, FED can change anything's market price by 50% over night, given their unlimited money supply ability Those economy books that I read 20 years ago, I slowly realized that all those books are just like bible, just strengthen people's belief on fiat money, unconsiously. Since if you believe supply and demand theory, you will need a tangeble unit of account for value, then fiat money automatically fit into that slot and you get skrewed by supply and demand of fiat money forever It's not so much that I believe in supply and demand theory. It's that we don't have an objective measure for value. It's a factual observation that people socially decide on a unit of account for value. Currently, fiat money fits that role. If inflation of the money supply is too extreme, and high enough price inflation or hyperinflation results, people will drop fiat money for something that more reliably holds value. If price inflation stays low enough, then people will ignore the problem. It reminds me of the boiling frog analogy. People will continue believing in fiat money until something drastic happens. |
|
|
|
there are questions begging to be answered here. Are users required to perform KYC once or multiple time to claim their coins? what if the company is not satisfied with the KYC of the coin owner.
The situation with centralized stablecoins is much the same as centralized exchanges. In general, you would only need to perform KYC once. However, we're increasingly seeing instances where both exchanges and stablecoin issuers are freezing accounts and demanding additional due diligence about income and funding sources. If they don't like your answers, they close your account but usually return your money. I believe this is because exchanges and stablecoin issuers are implementing the type of risk-based AML demanded by FATF rules. As time goes on, I expect cryptocurrency service providers to become increasingly careful about who they do business with, for fear of crossing banking and AML regulators. |
|
|
|
Of course that is also a personal thing, it would be opposite for vegetarian person, that feeling is subjective. Yes, it's an oversimplified example, but your point only seems to reinforce that valuation is subjective -- based on supply and demand, not the cost of production. Yes, that's why using supply and demand model is too abstract and flexible, it does not give you any scientific measure about the value of the object. Of course it's not scientific. No economic model is scientific -- there are too many variables to consider, none of which can be isolated and tested in an empirical way. It would be nice if we could fit things into scientific models like a labor theory or cost-based theory of value, but we can't. Market pricing simply is not predictable, which is why we just shrug and say "supply and demand." So I think in this case, an objective measure will be the energy input (e.g. cost) required to make the food. Using energy as unit of account will make the valuation more objective, since no amount of fiat money printing can change the energy input of making a beef filet, thus its value (measured by energy content) is not affect by the supply and demand of fiat money
Is that a valuable metric, if it doesn't line up with actual market prices? |
|
|
|
any uk cab apps i can use that accept bitcoin? I want to start using BTC as the main currency for my money, lord knows you cant trust banks in this day and age.
Not directly, I don't think so. Bitcoin-based rideshare app ideas have been suggested before, but the economics don't really work. Most drivers want to be paid fiat money, and most riders want to pay fiat money. There doesn't seem to be enough consumer demand yet to justify BitPay or similar integration either. Like AdolfinWolf said, your best bet is to hold bitcoins and buy Uber gift cards with them as needed. |
|
|
|
How how non-fungible goods? For example, you have filet mignon and I have a can of beans. We both won't starve tonight, but surely you wouldn't be willing to trade yours for mine. That's the subjectivity of value, and why the idea of supply and demand is so crucial to determining it. If one food tastes better, has more nutritional value, has perceived superiority -- and is much scarcer -- then it must be more valuable.
In your example of beef vs bean, the beef's benefit falls into second category: It reduces your energy loss more than a can of bean do, it makes you feel fresh and have more nutrition, all makes you more energized. How do you quantify that, knowing that people can still survive off canned beans? If they can't afford steak, they'll buy beans. That's a function of demand, not a function of production inputs. Of course that is also a personal thing, it would be opposite for vegetarian person, that feeling is subjective. Yes, it's an oversimplified example, but your point only seems to reinforce that valuation is subjective -- based on supply and demand, not the cost of production. But if you take a supply and demand approach, then the price of beef and bean will be decided by who has more money: Meat eating person or vegetarian person. Then it get distorted
Isn't that a more accurate description for value? It's the price that people actually pay. If demand for meat falls, producers will follow suit and supply will fall until the market reaches a new equilibrium. It's just like gold -- when demand falls, so does price, which forces unprofitable mines out of business. This causes a decline in production. |
|
|
|
You don't get the actual topic man, the thing is how POS is better than POW and since POS is already a good algorithm why do need need to waste energy to mine POW coins since POS is a simple solution and I do agree that POS has upper hand because no matter what but energy and resources are being wasted in POW indeed. Bitcoin remains the dominant cryptocurrency for good reason -- POS is widely viewed as insecure. Ethereum has delayed their transition to POS by several years and backtracked to a hybrid POW-POS proposal because of the threats. But, to buy those hardware you need to invest money and like you said if someone grabs a big number of coins they can control the network similarly if someone has a lot of coins they can sell off buy miners and actually be a whale too.
Aside from cases of pre-mining or insta-mining large stakes, exchanges remain the biggest threat to any sort of POS system: No need to imagine, it's already been done -- at least with Delegated POS. https://twitter.com/VitalikButerin/status/1234522463129800709Poloniex, Binance and Huobi were caught staking customer STEEM and using it to attack the existing DPOS consensus. They've done a pretty good job of brushing the attack under the rug, but the evidence is rather damning. POS hasn't been solved yet. It may never be. POW is the best we have, for now and the foreseeable future. These risks don't exist in Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
When saything price crash, people are still unconsiously using fiat money as a standard to measure value, this is the major reason that bitcoin can not become a safe-haven asset
Now some people even say that the machine that makes surgical masks has become the money printing machine, means that medical supplies has become the safe-haven asset, but they still use fiat money to measure value
So I think the key is to let people to use bitcoin to measure value, that will make quite big difference, otherwise, always a slave of fiat currency
Exactly. As long as Bitcoin is measured against Fiat, it'll never be able to achieve independency from the existent monetary system. To overcome this phenomenon, Bitcoin would need to become the global unit of account, much like the dollar is today. This goes beyond just the abandonment of fiat currencies. Imagine if fiat currencies are abandoned and people return to using gold and gold-backed notes as their primary unit of account. In that situation, I think bitcoins would at best occupy the same space that gold already occupies in relation to fiat today. Bitcoins would be treated like any other commodity: When economic turmoil strikes, speculators would sell them for safe haven assets like gold, gold-backed notes, and government bonds whose credit rating would be linked to gold reserves. |
|
|
|
In economy books, they tell you that "value" is decided by supply and demand together. That is a too abstract and flexible definition
I took a more scientific approach that using energy to measure the value of one object: One object has value, because of mainly 2 reasons:
1. It contains useful energy that can be burned (like food, electricity or petroleum)
2. It can reduce your energy loss (like cloth or house that protect you from excessive energy loss in cold weather, or computer to reduce the physical paper work)
Since all living things burns energy through metabolism and other activities, anything that satisfy these two criteriea can be regarded as having demand from living things, thus have some value basis, no matter how large the supply is Perhaps you could apply this to fungible commodities like electricity or petrol, to a degree. How how non-fungible goods? For example, you have filet mignon and I have a can of beans. We both won't starve tonight, but surely you wouldn't be willing to trade yours for mine. That's the subjectivity of value, and why the idea of supply and demand is so crucial to determining it. If one food tastes better, has more nutritional value, has perceived superiority -- and is much scarcer -- then it must be more valuable. |
|
|
|
How many people invest in dollars, or euros, or yen? Not many, yet that doesn't seem to affect their values. Anyway, only the investors care about the price and investors aren't needed.
Holders of any currency care about the price, or purchasing power. I know multiple people living in the UK who avoid holding any of their savings in Pound sterling, because of its weakness over the past decade or two. vaccine is already in trial phase as we speak. and there are quite number of institutions and pharma companies that are into developing the vaccine.
That might be true, but it's still going to be months until one hits the market even if a successful vaccine gets developed. And having a vaccine won't instantly eliminate all this fear and hysteria that's crippling markets--and I wish I could confidently estimate how long it's going to take for bitcoin, stocks, metals, and everything else to bounce back, but I don't have a clue. Nobody has a clue. The Chinese government has been testing a Japanese flu drug on COVID-19. They say it's clearly effective and safe. It's not a vaccine, but it offers some hope on the treatment side. |
|
|
|
I was at a dinner party recently and Bitcoin came up in the context of markets and the economy. Someone shared their theory that cryptocurrency markets were part of the overarching tech bubble that's been developing since the last financial crisis, as reflected by the Nasdaq.
That's an interesting theory, not one I'd considered, though I'm not sure if it's true. I'm also not sure what kind of tech bubble there is, because I vividly recall the internet stock bubble that popped in 2000 and this bull market that we've been in for stocks for the past 11 years doesn't seem to be centered around tech companies in particular. The top Nasdaq companies are Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Facebook, Intel, etc. The list continues. I'm not saying that it was only tech companies that boomed, just that there has been a tech bubble, and that Bitcoin may have been riding its coattails to some extent. The 1990s boom wasn't completely tech driven either -- the dotcom bubble was just the climax of it all. Besides, as NeuroticFish has pointed out bitcoin hasn't been correlated strongly with the stock market for any significant length of time anyway. It's had booms and busts several times since 2009 whereas the stock market hadn't had even so much as a big correction until recently--at least none that I can recall.
Bitcoin has only existed during a period of economic prosperity. It has never been through an economic crash. That's what this theory is about, more so than temporary asset correlations. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin has value because it has both scarcity and utility. It is a limited and useful resource. It is important to note that something must be BOTH in order to command a market value, NOT either. More specifically, I see "utility" as network effect, or network value. Bitcoins can only have value if other people accept and value them. Many people use Metcalfe's law as a model for Bitcoin's network effect and value. We can expect both the value to increase and the number of users to increase exponentially so long as the current technology maintains itself and remains both useful and in a limited abundance. Bitcoin adoption is a free market process. There is no guarantee of exponentially increasing adoption. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin doesn't need investors. A good currency has very little investment. Bitcoin will have succeeded when nobody wants to invest in it anymore.
One could argue that miners are investors. They invest in mining hardware in order to yield bitcoins. Bitcoin doesn't need speculators and traders, but I also think speculation creates adopters. If not for the bubble in 2013, I may never have heard of Bitcoin. I originally bought in because of the hype, but now I'm a frequent user and not much of a speculator. |
|
|
|
I've seen something interesting in Bitcoin history: as soon as somebody finds a correlation between Bitcoin price movement and something else's price movement (usually stocks, indeed), the market decides to prove it wrong. I was at a dinner party recently and Bitcoin came up in the context of markets and the economy. Someone shared their theory that cryptocurrency markets were part of the overarching tech bubble that's been developing since the last financial crisis, as reflected by the Nasdaq. I didn't think much of the connection at the time, but I'm certainly considering it now. |
|
|
|
I've been complaining about this for a long time. It may have been long delayed, but I'm very happy Coinbase finally made the change. This will greatly benefit the network. Don't forget BitMEX, while we're on the subject of bad actors on the network. I see very little public pressure on them mitigate their spam. The news about Bitcoin Batching are just a marketing trick,nothing more.
How is it a marketing trick? Can you please explain. It's just a marketing gimmick. They are lowering withdrawal fees for customers, most of whom had no idea Coinbase was spamming the network so badly (and causing high fees) in the first place. Cheaper fees -- what's not to like? |
|
|
|
Well, he's obviously right that Bitcoin isn't a hedge against pandemics, I doubt anyone will argue with that today. But is Bitcoin a hedge again "fiat regimes"? This idea never been truly tested, I wouldn't count Zimbabwe or Venezuela as a proof, those are tiny local crises. If something like that happened with the west, and it caused similar economic crash as we are experience now, then maybe Bitcoin would react just like it reacts now. Maybe we shouldn't say it is a hedge against fiat regimes, but rather that it was designed to be. That sort of widespread trust in money can't be built overnight -- it's based on both network effect and being time tested. If the US dollar collapsed tomorrow, I don't think the world would flock to Bitcoin. 20 or 30 years from now, my answer may be different. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
