So how much should cost the tx processing in some abstract Lightning Network or other anticipated "highly-scalable network" designed to meet one's bold expectations?
the equilibrium of what users are willing to pay + what LN nodes are willing to route transactions for. it's a free market. in practice, since the barriers to running an LN node are so low, it stands to reason that fees will constitute a race towards zero. we're talking extremely cheap, like a penny. of course, you are not guaranteed bitcoin's security when you use lightning. that's the trade-off. there are situations where you could lose money---node goes offline and counter party is dishonest, bitcoin blockchain is congested so you can't close a channel, etc. |
|
|
|
SEC will have to eventually concede an authorisation to avoid major damages of people wanting to get long Bitcoin getting long sub-regulated vehicles, or dangerous Bitcoin proxies (Paypal CFD, for examples). ....why do you say "CFD"? paypal isn't running a CFD market. that would be illegal in the USA. having obtained a bitlicense (which requires 100% reserves) and using a NY licensed trust company (paxos) for custody, they actually appear to be more tightly regulated than any american exchange on the market. When an ETF will get approved in the US (in Europe we have something very similar, BTCE) Grayscale will see massive outflows in that new vehicle. Hopefully it will be not relevant for the underlying.
i reckon it'll hurt GBTC holders, who will see that giant premium disappear, but i don't see why it should have a major effect on the rest of the market. an ETF approval on the other hand---that might generate some hype, and with hype comes higher prices.  |
|
|
|
If you want to seriously compare the security of airgapped vs hardware wallets, then the sidechannel attacks are impossible to defend though I think secp256k1 is less susceptible to some of it than others. Hardware wallets are usually hardened against those. can you elaborate on this? what is the theoretical threat to an airgapped wallet setup? Most times in situations with physical access a $5 wrench attack happens, rather than some high-tech hacking with abusing hardware bugs and such. If you trust hardware wallet manufacturers and distrust computer component vendors, that's fine, and vice versa.
the wrench attack angle is why i strongly prefer general purpose hardware. hardware wallets just scream "rob me!" the only hardware wallet that appeals to me is bitbox---nice and discreet. anyone tried it? |
|
|
|
sorry guys, i shit the bed on this one. donated the buy-in, but i know it's annoying playing with sit-outs. i woke up to play but was overwhelmed by family drama and never made it to the PC. congrats to @icopress and the others ITM. |
|
|
|
What's your take on pump and dumps? Does it make you feel uncomfortable knowing that traders outside of the circle will likely make a short-term loss, while those within the circle will mostly make significant gains?
it's a wash. markets are zero sum---there are always gonna be winners and losers. i'm not gonna lose any sleep over the losers. they gambled on the market and lost. that doesn't mean i have any admiration for pump-and-dumpers. i just think they come with the territory. i'd also rather live in a world based on caveat emptor than one where nanny states regulate markets to shit, just to save gullible idiots from themselves. fools will be parted from their money no matter what. if it's not this scam or the next one, it'll be the one after that. |
|
|
|
I am thinking of donating more than $5000 worth of bitcoins to a charity and I am not clear about how to fill out IRS form 8283, especially the part where you must have the donation appraised.
Does anyone have any experience with this?
FYI, I want to donate the bitcoins directly rather than selling them first because I can avoid paying taxes on the donated bitcoins.
good thinking. this hadn't occurred to me as a way to reduce my tax liability when bitcoin goes to the moon next year. i see 2 solutions. the first one is easy---donate $5000 or less worth and you can avoid using a qualified appraiser. the second solution is to hire an appraiser who is familiar with cryptocurrency. i came across 2 such firms: https://charitablesolutionsllc.com/virtual-currency-appraisals/https://cryptoappraisers.com/i'm curious how it works out. let us know what you end up doing. |
|
|
|
I am first to register! I am waiting you to join for another great game! The Grand finale is getting closer, I hope I will be on that table once again! And I hope I will win your asses once again! After all I have two finals won!  i just loaded up my account and registered. see you guys on the felt tomorrow! the only thing i'm worried about is sleeping late. 9am is still a challenge for me. i'll set a few alarms. i'm not even aiming for the grand finale---taking down the little final will be satisfying enough!  |
|
|
|
i just saw a few MB of 1 sat/byte transactions get confirmed, so i'm inclined to say bitcoin's fees are not overpriced. get in the habit of consolidating inputs (fees are based on size, after all!) and if possible, transact during off-peak hours---generally during USA nighttime. this will save you loads on transaction fees. I think "overpricing" only makes sense if someone controls supply and sets a fixed price for it, and if the price is more than most potential buyers are ready to pay, then you have an overprice. But with Bitcoin, the fee prices are regulated by a bidding system, it's a free market, which is the best mechanism for price discovery. +1. well said. in the context of a free market, no fee can really be "overpriced" since other people are willing to pay it. if immediate confirmation is too expensive, don't pay it. wait for congestion to die down. it always does. we're in the middle of a bubble and 1 sat/byte transactions are being confirmed. what more could one ask for? |
|
|
|
26.5k!
The slope of the bull market (log scale) is less steep than the run up in 2017 from $1000 to $2800. Level of hype and mainstream media coverage is relatively low. Hmm, what is a good way of measuring media coverage? Is there any way to search for mentions of "bitcoin" in say the New York Times? it should be simple to write a script that parses news or twitter feeds for mentions of bitcoin. anecdotally, media coverage and hype can't be that low. i've had 4 friends and family members call or text me asking about bitcoin and how to buy it recently. retail FOMO is picking up. you follow defi stuff right? any promising projects you're focused on? |
|
|
|
Hi there
Basically i provide a "small" Bankroll to a Winning Pokerplayer who wants to play at CoinPoker riskfree.
The amount is variable on the Limit the winning Player is playing.
But they got to win and hand over their winnings to you at some point - Right? Other than this is actually a promotion for that website, the only other thing I can think of (which doesn't make much sense) is that you want these players to use a reference code to somehow boost your own payout amount for referrals. i thought he was working for coinpoker, trying to hire prop players. after looking through his posts, that's not the case. he's just trying to churn out referral earnings. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5215348.msg53537146#msg53537146affiliates take 30% of their players' rake on coinpoker, so staking your affiliates (as long as they aren't losing players) could be pretty profitable. |
|
|
|
I would actually think that 5% of total assets is a lot, especially considering that exchanges may not have all deposits in liquid BTC and invested in other assets to earn interest. it certainly is. with a rinky-dink exchange like exmo, i would not assume they are solvent after taking a hit like this. 5% sounds small in relative terms but just looking at the BTC, ETH, and USDT losses alone, we're talking $8 million + lost. that represents 1/3 of exmo's daily volume. the number of BTC stolen represents 3/4 of their entire BTC/USD order book!  How they deal with this will be interesting. Will shareholder equity simply take a hit to cover the 5%? Or do all depositors just lose 5% of their balance held with the exchange? The paths that can be taken have drastically different legal implications.
they claim to be covering all losses from their own pocket: Most importantly, we want to assure you that if any user fund is affected by this incident, it will be covered completely by EXMO. i'm skeptical though. this is definitely how fractional reserve begins on some exchanges. they get hacked for more than they can afford, then they go into damage control mode and just hope they can cover withdrawal requests. i have similar concerns about kucoin. |
|
|
|
But there is another claim that was recently filed, I wrote about this: I think you'll have to pay here as well. It's a question of time. i'm pretty sure pogodin's lawsuits are frivolous and not much will come of them. he's been filing copy/paste manipulation lawsuits against lots of exchanges, not just bitmex. he's just hoping for a quick buck by suing anyone he can. the case bitmex just settled had a lot more merit. they stiffed an early investor despite having very clear written agreements with him. |
|
|
|
Well aslong there is no website, backers will straight fund the player after his package gets sold off. In first place there will be reservations, after its clear that the package is going to be sold off backers transfer their funds, before the start of tournaments. After it is all about trust, there is no security that the player isnt going to scam. But as i said before we go public i am going to sell my packages to gain trust from the community. Selectively i going to add trusted and profitable players, randoms or beginners wont be the case. fair enough, that's how p2p "buy a piece" staking has always worked, but i wonder how many stakers you'll find specifically outside of a poker community and on a site like bitcointalk, since players generally won't have have a reputation here. when i used to stake on 2+2 back in the day, it was not just a matter of showing sharkscope stats, but also a matter of being established enough on the forum to be trusted with staker funds. that's the potential deficit i see here. and without a deep pool of potential stakers, staked players may have trouble consistently charging a decent mark-up and selling all their pieces. you might have better luck garnering interest on 2+2 or cardschat. bitcoin gamblers are pretty degen---mostly bettors, dice players, etc and less poker players around here. |
|
|
|
I dont plan to make another online poker room. My idea is to make a site where users can buy action from tournament players. Staking is similar to crowdfunding, users are buying shares in % and incase a player gets in prizemoney the users get his $. cool. i used to stake and be staked back in the online poker boom days. sounds great tbh. i'd love to see a venue for buying pieces of tourney players. are you talking about a site where you curate players and we back them? or one where anyone can present their stats and be staked? how would tournament funding work? how secure would stakers' money be? how do you make sure staked players don't stiff you? |
|
|
|
Bump, because I'm still interested in hearing any opinions on BTCPOP. Surely there must be some members here who've used it. their reputation is not stellar---plenty of complaints about locked accounts/confiscated funds and terrible communication from support. ownership has changed hands a couple times. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1393297.0i wouldn't risk much on them. I found another exchange that I can use for Curecoin, and the market there is much more liquid and the price is much, much better.
if prices are diverging between 2 exchanges, it usually means something is awry at one of them. disabled wallets is the first thing that comes to mind. |
|
|
|
I speculate that the cryptospace will be fractured to the compliant exchanges based in America like Coinbase and Gemini, the noncompliant of the rule but still KYC exchanges similar to Binance, Bittrex, others outside of America and the grey exchanges where there will never be KYC. it will be interesting to see how exchanges like binance, kucoin, bybit, etc respond. i suspect (and hope) they'll continue to dance around the issue by claiming they prohibit USA customers. thus in theory, they aren't transmitting transactions that cross USA borders, so nothing is reportable to FINCEN. that way, they can keep allowing unverified traders. it's playing with fire, of course. FINCEN may already deem what a lot of these exchanges are doing as illegal money transmission in service of USA customers. the more rigid their regulations get, the more likely they are to eventually sanction someone like binance. i just hope when that inevitably happens that it's a civil penalty---not a criminal one that shuts the whole exchange down. the end game is to force all exchanges (not just american ones) into mandatory KYC. i strongly feel they're gonna make the case that geo-blocking americans or banning them in terms of service is insufficient, and that only mandatory KYC can prevent foreign exchanges from doing business with americans. FinCEN’s decision might seem bad for many reasons, but it is also good for many reasons. no. just.....no. |
|
|
|
Hasn't this been applied before already? I mean I kept seeing this kinds of news before where a customer moves 10,000$ worth of crypto and the financial entity is required to report it so I don't know what has been changed with this rule because it is exactly the same thing the way I see it. It is still the same AML rule we have seen in the past couple of years so really nothing has changed.
Yeah, AML measures have always required relevant parties to flag transactions of $5k or more: Under Treasury's SAR rule, a broker-dealer is required to file a suspicious activity report if: (i) a transaction is conducted or attempted to be conducted by, at, or through a broker-dealer; (ii) the transaction involves or aggregates funds or other assets of at least $5000; and (iii) the broker-dealer knows, suspects, or has reason to suspect that the transaction: (a) involves funds or is intended to disguise funds derived from illegal activity, (b) is designed to evade requirements of the BSA, (c) has no business or apparent lawful purpose, and the broker-dealer knows of no reasonable explanation for the transaction after examining the available facts, or (d) involves the use of the broker-dealer to facilitate criminal activity. This provision is under the PATRIOT Act so it's likely been in effect for 15+ years, and I'm pretty sure it covers crypto. Maybe the new proposal requires more data to be provided though? Reporting of $3k worth of transactions is also new. the threshold for cross-border transactions is being lowered to $250: the proposed decrease in the applicable threshold for international transactions from $3,000 to $250 that is certainly new! technically nothing has changed yet---these regulations are only "proposed" and we are in a public comment period until january 4th. it's probably just a technicality though. the bastards only gave 15 days for comments instead of the usual 60 (during christmas!) to make sure they are passed before trump exits office. |
|
|
|
Plus, if governments are looking to pursue CBDCs, every single private stablecoin is at risk from regulatory pressure. CBDCs won't need to compete with stablecoins for market share if stablecoins are simply legislated into obsoletion. I think their days are numbered.
with libra diem launching next month, things are heating up. libra is what got congress really talking about crypto regulation, and i have a feeling it's about to thrust it to the forefront again. the bitcoin bull market is accelerating things too. there is always a chance that governments tread lightly in favor innovation in the DEFI space. wouldn't that be nice? |
|
|
|
key word almost. who even needs bitcoin when we have dogecoin? that's where elon is coming from. he's a total troll. if you guys are hoping for another michael saylor (CEO/founder of microstrategy) then you're probably gonna be disappointed. |
|
|
|
Update:
3 weeks later I got an answer after I needed to say a second time that I want to delete my account.
If I wanted to use the site I was forced to verify my identity. Now they tell me that I can delete my account but I need to provide a selfie holding a handwritten note. "Today is date/month/year, delete my Binance account".
Why should I show my face? Considering I never showed it (because I'm too cute) why should they need it? That's so bothering, I'm thinking about using the dog of my neighbor taking a pic with a note
unbearable
it almost seems like tweeting @CZ and hoping the tweet goes viral has a better shot at success. i was checking out https://www.enforcementtracker.com/ which details GDPR fines. it seems like there are lots of cases against small companies and even individuals, not just mega corporations like i thought. maybe you could get binance slapped with a noncompliance fine. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
