Binance has been a moving force in the crypto industry for quite some time, making it one of the biggest exchanges in the world. While there are many competitors striving to take Binance's "throne", but none have been able to succeed so far. Most recently, Binance offered to buy FTX for a hefty sum of money. If the deal goes through, that means Binance will become more powerful than what it is right now. After all, FTX is the second-largest crypto exchange in the world. That's a dangerous play because Binance would be one step closer towards becoming a monopoly. Imagine if Binance buys everything, and becomes the sole player in the industry. A hack, a government shut down, or any other undesired situation would destroy the crypto market completely. That's why I think it's important to have competition for the good of the industry. I can't imagine how high BNB's price will go if Binance gets to control all of the crypto market. What are your thoughts? Do you think Binance is (or will become) a monopoly? If not, why? Do you think purchasing FTX is a good idea? Your input will be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.  |
|
|
|
There used to be a lot of hype back then when Chia was the "new kid in town". Many people rushed to buy HDDs (Hard Disk Drives) just to mine Chia for profit. Before Chia launched, there was a coin called "Burst" which was also based on HDD mining. This old coin didn't turn out to become much of a success unlike its successor (Chia). For quite some time now, there's been silence regarding the HDD mining industry. The whole crypto space is focused on PoS coins that are centralized by design. It makes me wonder whenever the HDD mining hype is over or if there's a possibility of a comeback? After all, HDD mining is much more accessible than staking. What do you think? Is the HDD mining hype is over? If so, do you think there will be a comeback? Why mining with HDDs isn't as popular as mining with GPUs or ASICs? Your input will be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much. |
|
|
|
Couldn't be more true, web 3 will be the next trend of the market but not to replace web2 or help us protect personal data from service providers. That is true in theory, but how can a project become decentralized when it is created by centralized people? Web 3 will probably be the next tool to hype like they did with NFT, DEFI...apart from bitcoin, from now on i think any project created will be centralized we will no longer see privacy focused projects like bitcoin or monero.
Did you mean "how a project can be decentralized when it is created by people with publicly-known identities?" If that's the case, then you're absolutely correct. No project can be truly decentralized if the persons behind it (developers, founder) are widely known to the public. They need to stay anonymous to help protect censorship-resistance at all costs. When identities are known, governments can prosecute the persons behind the project to get what they want. That's not possible with projects whose creator or developing team are unknown. Consider how no one has been able to stop Bitcoin because the creator decided to remain anonymous. If Satoshi decided to reveal his identity, it would've been game over for Bitcoin. Web 3.0 can still have a future if developers decide to step up to the game to help defend censorship-resistance for good. Getting out of centralized infrastructure is the first step towards true decentralization. Unfortunately, most developers want to attract investors into their projects so the only way they can do that is by revealing their identities to the public. Otherwise, investors will think the project is a scam. Web 3.0 is just starting to blossom, so let's give it some time to see what happens. Just my thoughts  |
|
|
|
We all know ethereum merge of PoW to PoS happened recently which reduced the transaction fee a lot but it become more centralized than before so what is going to be the future of ethereum?
Today I saw some blogs related to this so just curious about what bitcointalk community thinks about this merge, the major stake holders of ethereum becomes centralized exchanges which all consists of 64% and all the centralized exchanges are regulated and can be controlled by government so in future if governments make changes in their regulation policies which can affect the ethereum so what will be the future plan of ethereum holders? It can be trusted and still it is good for investment?
Ethereum may be turning centralized, but other coins are faring worse (with the exception of Bitcoin). I believe that what's happening now is only temporary, since "The Merge" is in its very beginnings (it's only been around 2 months since the upgrade materialized on the ETH blockchain). Give it some time, and you'll see more validators hop in. I think with the upcoming scaling upgrade (which will integrate Sharding into the ETH blockchain), the network's centralization problems will come to an end. I'm hopeful that will be the case for the good of "De-Fi". It would be quite disappointing to see ETH turning centralized, after being the pioneer of Web 3.0. After all, ETH always promised to be the platform for "unstoppable applications". That could only be a achieved with a decentralized and censorship-resistant blockchain. Many competitors come and go, but I believe ETH will last thanks to the solid foundation built upon it. The future is unpredictable, so we can only hope for the best. Just my opinion |
|
|
|
Solana isn't an EVM chain, which is a good thing because it allows it to focus on optimizing for one specific use case: providing high-throughput support for dApps and decentralized internet infrastructure (the largest of which might be Ethereum). This is something that Ethereum can't do because if you try to build something that doesn't need to be as fast as possible on Ethereum, it will simply be too slow.
Even if you want to build something small, like a proof of ownership system for art or collectibles, there are still gas fees to pay every time someone wants access to the proof.
Solana is its own independent Blockchain network with its own set of tools and programming language for smart contracts. There's no other platform that's as fast and cheap as Solana (someone correct me if I'm wrong). However, it's also one of the most unreliable blockchains in the world. The network often experiences outages, while competing chains like ETH and ADA have been running smoothly without these kinds of issues. I guess that's what happens when the project sacrifices decentralization in favor of high performance and cost-efficiency. Developers don't seem to care about fixing outages, as they're only focused on the money. The announcement of a new phone powered by the Solana blockchain, tells us just that. For some reason, whales are keeping SOL among the top ranks in market cap. Most people want convenience these days, so they wouldn't care using Solana even though network outages are the norm on the Blockchain. Ultimately, the market will decide whenever Solana will stay at the top or go all the way down the drain. As long as decentralization wins, there should be nothing to worry about. Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
I think the peak for MATIC would likely be around $5. That would be a market cap the size of BNB currently. At $20 it would be as large as Ethereum. I don't think that's a realistic expectation, but I guess it's possible the entire crypto market could boom again. Still, I think with a market cap of $100 billion, it would be hard to say that MATIC is still a good value, but you never know. When it comes to partnerships and the most activity, MATIC seems to be winning and doing all the right things. It is certainly one of my favorites, but if it goes above $5 I will probably start lightening my bag a little bit.
Couldn't agree more with you, mate. $20 sounds unrealistic right now, especially when MATIC has a large supply of coins in circulation. At first, I've thought MATIC would reach $20, as the "De-Fi" and NFT hype would make it go all the way to the moon. But now that the hype is somewhat over, we're beginning to see a realistic market valuation based on utility. The only way MATIC would ever get to $20 is if BTC continues to soar like crazy. Other than that, it will have a hard time getting past $2 anytime soon. Don't get me wrong, MATIC is still a good cryptocurrency with blazing-fast transaction speeds and dirt-cheap gas fees. I think this is the reason why major companies like Disney and Coca-Cola decided to join the Polygon blockchain. Compared to other competing chains, Polygon is secured by the ETH blockchain. That means it's as strong and resilient as ETH. I'd say prices are pretty cheap these days, so it wouldn't hurt to buy some more just in case it "explodes" in price. Just my opinion |
|
|
|
This model is what we've seen from a project like Electroneum and that became popular so quickly because it's the first one. But not long enough, the project's buzz became silent and it's got a low volume today. Next project that made that model was the Pi network which is until now nowhere to found in the market despite the marketing they've made and is just liking wasting a lot of people's hope with their simulated mining on phone which how they have introduced advertised the project.
I hate to break it to you, but mining coins on a phone is a complete waste of time and money. You'd just do it for fun, rather than profit. There were tons of CPU-mineable coins which turned out to be a failure in the long run. Electroneum was one of them, followed by Pi Network and several others. Back then, there was a coin named "Magi", but the original developer abandoned the project some time ago. The community has taken over it, but it's not the same as the good-old days. What I like most about the coin is that all miners are equal on the Blockchain. There's an algorithm which penalizes big miners by reducing the block reward. So you'd have to mine with very little hashrate to get the most rewards out of a block. If other CPU-mineable coins copied Magi's model, they would've been much more decentralized and equitable by now. You can still mine Magi (XMG) on a phone, but don't expect to get rich anytime soon. With GPUs and ASICs being extremely profitable these days (although energy costs are increasing at a fast pace), less people will be inclined to mine crypto on their phones. Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
I'm not surprised. With rising energy costs worldwide, it's expected most countries will turn their stance against PoW mining. That means Bitcoin will have a smaller network hashrate in the future, resulting in lesser security against external attacks. Unless all of the miners switch to alternative energy sources, don't expect things to get better anytime soon. I just hope the US doesn't join Canada and the EU in banning PoW mining, since most of the network hashrate comes from there (as far as I know). Imagine how disastrous would be for Bitcoin if a global superpower like the US decides to ban PoW mining to pursue its "green energy" agenda. That would influence more countries to do the same. ETH and other major cryptocurrencies have turned themselves to PoS, so we're going to have to see whenever Bitcoin will remain PoW for long or at least switch to a hybrid consensus algorithm (PoW + PoS). No one knows what's going to happen in the future, so we can only hope for the best. I don’t want to escalate my thoughts to this level because no one can really digest the fact that bitcoin getting turned into PoS mechanism. First of all big institutions whose holding millions of bitcoins can easily control the market if stake based system is imposed. Plus it will be very complicated to make it stake based considering Mr Satoshi is holding pretty good amount of bitcoins and thus it could put everything into jeopardy if someday they stepped in and started selling. I am not sure if that’s how staked will work but in as common user that’s terrifying thought.
To explain it simply, PoS is VERY bad for Bitcoin and shouldn't be adopted by the community in the first place. A hybrid approach (PoW + PoS) would be better as it would allow Bitcoin to remain decentralized while also being friendly to the environment. It would be just like how Peercoin (PPC) is today. You can see how destructive PoS or any of its variants can be (such as DPoS) when only a few control a large portion of the cryptocurrency's circulating supply. A PoS-only blockchain network would make big exchanges like Binance and Coinbase more powerful then what they are right now. These companies would use customer's holdings to make key decisions on the Blockchain. Instead of a person being the "shareholder" of the company (in this case, the Blockchain), the wealthy would be able to do as they wish with their money. It's a terrible concept that leads us back to the traditional world of banking. Unfortunately, ETH has lost its luster by defecting to PoS. Most of the altcoins have abandoned PoW, so it seems that Bitcoin would remain as the sole PoW cryptocurrency in the world. I wouldn't mind about this as long as decentralization wins in the end. Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
Some don't understand that TRX is the cheapest network for USDT transfer. Heck, it was fast as hell too. Sure the TRX smart contract seems pale compared to BNB or Sol, the similar smart contract network that follows ETH. But I think the smart contract market is oversaturated and TRX just coming to the game too late. TRX doesn't have any incentive to lure in new dapp devs too.
TRX may be extremely fast and dirt cheap, but it lacks a wide number of quality dApps and tokens compared to leading smart contract platforms. Developers aren't that interested in building dApps on the TRON blockchain, simply because there are far better options out there on the market. It's all about Cardano, Ethereum, BNB, Polygon, and Avalanche these days, since that's where the money is. The day stablecoins abandon TRX completely, would be the day most people will stop using the TRON blockchain for good. Unless the team ramps up the project's marketing/promotion efforts, I don't see TRON going anywhere soon. At least, the cryptocurrency is being actively traded across exchanges. Who knows how long will it last? Just my opinion |
|
|
|
It's not possible in the fiat/USD standard. It will be possible in the BTC standard (measuring commodities such as gas, oil, gold, copper, wheat in sats).  Exactly. Most bitcoiners have been waiting for the day when the world "ditches" the Fiat standard in favor of the Bitcoin standard. I must say, this is no easy task especially when governments and central banks don't want to lose their power. Despite ever-rising inflation rates, Fiat currencies are still the moving force of the global economy. People need to start distrusting banks and use Bitcoin as their main currency for day-to-day payments. Once that happens, you can say goodbye to centralized Fiat for good. Early adopters like you and me would certainly become filthy rich as goods and services would be valued in Bitcoin terms (not Fiat). 1 Bitcoin = 1 Bitcoin, right? The halving is bound to make Bitcoin scarcer (sort of), so it's likely we'll see a higher-priced BTC during or after the year of 2024. Which is why buying more BTC now while it's "cheap", may be the best decision you could ever make. Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
Paying $8 monthly for that blue check is not a problem for other people since I'm sure it would be considered as luxury or somehow another trust layer for the twitter community given that there are existing blue check accounts are being used by scammers and trolls. Paying blue check will instantly weed out most of those blue check verified trolls and scammers. As far as I know, the only ones can avail the blue check mark are ones who are fully verified in the past which means they are KYCed and somehow submit their ID to the platform. If ever DOGE is accepted as a payment method, We surely will see a price bump on DOGE.
The question is: what perks/benefits will the user have after paying $8 a month for a "blue tick"? Without getting anything in return, I don't see Twitter's paid subscription plan going anywhere soon. Not even adding DOGE as payment method will help. It's been around a week and a half since Elon Musk purchased Twitter, but it's yet the day where he hasn't said anything about Dogecoin. Maybe he's afraid of the regulators? But with mandatory ID verification on the platform (the blue tick), I don't see why adding DOGE should be a problem in the first place. I've noticed that the "meme" coin's price "pumped" for a brief period of time after the deal went through. I guess it will "pump" even further in price once the cryptocurrency gets integrated into the platform as a micropayments tool. No one knows what will happen in the future, so we can only hope for the best. Just my opinion |
|
|
|
Um, I'm not sure. People are hesitant to invest in anything right now, not even legal businesses. It's really hazardous, so most people appear to be holding out until things become clearer. People aren't really motivated to trade in light of the present scenario. Perhaps you can explain how you arrived at this assessment. to the extent of an article or something? Perhaps with them, we'll be able to take it in a little more easily. People will still be interested in shitcoins and meme coins, but I expect they won't have as much appeal as the bull market.
The recession causes severe pain across both the crypto and stocks markets. That's because people often hoard their cash when the cost of living goes up at a very fast pace. With central banks adding fuel to the fire, it's going to take quite a long time before we're able to experience an "altcoin season" anytime soon. "Meme" coins are usually driven by hype, so they could skyrocket in price even if it's for a short period of time. They don't have any future since developers don't take them seriously. And don't let me get started again on "Shitcoins". Ultimately, there can only be one winner. Bitcoin is by far the best cryptocurrency in the world (despite being slow and expensive at times), so it's likely most altcoins will die while the pioneer cryptocurrency lives for generations. I'd consider a gamble to invest into both "shitcoins" and "meme" coins. As long as you know what you're doing, there should be nothing to worry about. Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
Payment processed.
Received. Thanks again, guys!  |
|
|
|
If you like a centralized, reversible, censorable, seizable, non-pseudoanonymous, inflationary currency who's value is set by whim, then the digital dollar will succeed.
If you want to preserve your wealth and freedom, then you won't view bitcoin and the digital dollar as anything similar except that they both are "digital".
Most people won't get out of the "Digital Dollar" because of convenience. After all, we cannot deny the fact that the USD has greater adoption worldwide than Bitcoin itself. I don't think that the US Dollar would pose a direct threat to Bitcoin after it becomes fully digital. On the contrary, it will benefit Bitcoin as more people will become aware of digital payments. The US government could decide to launch a new CBDC from scratch or simply use an existing stablecoin like USDC or USDT (Tether). I think the "Digital Dollar" would be worse than its predecessor (US Dollars in physical form), simply because it will strip away people's privacy and freedom. Every transaction you make with the "Digital Dollar" would be publicly visible by both the government and the FED. Bitcoin transactions are also visible, but public addresses aren't directly linked to your identity. If you're careful enough to prevent exposing your identity, then Bitcoin does wonders in protecting your privacy and financial freedom. The US Digital Dollar hasn't even materialized yet, so we have plenty of time to enjoy paper money while it lasts. Just my opinion |
|
|
|
Probably. But I don't think people would be willing to pay $8 (either in Fiat or DOGE) just to get verified on Twitter. It would be a waste of time and money, in my opinion. The social media platform needs better ideas to help attract as much people into it as possible. Dogecoin could benefit a lot in terms of mainstream adoption if there are a lot of users on Twitter, though. That is if Elon Musk decides to add it as a micropayments tool. But I don't think he will dare to do it, as it will bring the attention of the regulators. They will come up with the excuse that Mr. Musk is patronizing money laundering and tax evasion by adopting DOGE into the platform without complying with KYC/AML. The only way this would work is by letting only verified users to use DOGE on Twitter. All of this is speculation, anyways. Let's give Mr. Musk some time to see what he will do with DOGE. Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
Not really forgotten if we are talking about it here. Plus, even though many other coins from those days went away, Litecoin is still 20th at the moment. If a coin is top 20 that means it’s not really forgotten and it’s still there. This is a coin that has been around since 2011, and it is still in top 20 which should tell you how strong it is.
I have always been a supporter of it, and invested a small bit into it as well. I am not supporting it because of my investment because it’s a very low amount, but if I had to rank my favourite four, it would be bitcoin, ethereum, bnb and litecoin. Those four are really better than I could ever expect.
I haven't thought of that before. Most old coins practically disappeared, while Litecoin is still among the top 20 coins in market cap. The same can be said about Dogecoin. Development progress for the LTC project may be slow, but at least it's being actively traded on the market. I wouldn't count on it as a long-term investment, though. Every day, it seems LTC's price is getting lower while other coins pump like crazy. At times, market prices remain stagnant, giving us little-to-no chance for profit. As much as I'd love to see LTC valued in the $1k range someday, there isn't much demand for such prediction to become a reality. LTC is by far one of the most decentralized cryptocurrencies after Bitcoin, so it's likely it'll last for generations. Just my opinion |
|
|
|
Don't know if either of these count (edit) as physical tokens, but they're both a little smaller than a .10 USD...   I have those, but unfortunately, they're not coins that you can load them with BTC. It would be great to have a "cold storage coin" that would be as small as the coins pictured. I think it's possible given the fact that QR codes can be printed on any size (if I'm correct). The real problem would be getting a tamper-evident hologram/sticker that would be so small to fit on the back of the coin. I haven't seen holos the size of a US dime, so I guess we're out of luck.  Nobody mentioned the 1 gram rounds yet or are we not counting those?
Thanks for your suggestion. But I'm looking more into physical crypto coins that can be loaded with crypto (in this case, Bitcoin). These 1 gram rounds only count as bullion, instead of a "cold storage wallet". That said, it seems that the 2022 Lealana Silver coin is the smallest loadable Bitcoin so far. |
|
|
|
According to the Ethereum site, "At its core, Web3 uses blockchains, cryptocurrencies, and NFTs to give power back to the users in the form of ownership." The key point is the one that I bolded above. Back to OP, how could we achieve Web 3.0 promises while centralization is getting tolerated? It is contradictory to the meaning of Web 3.0 itself. So in order to preserve the dream, truly "owning" a thing that is related is a prerequisite. If we look at what happens in the current ecosystem, we must ask ourselves do we own and have power over web3-related things, whereas, we usually connect to the system with a third-party entity and the form of the consensus are adhering to a regulation that obeys governments entities(ETH OFAC compliant). Not only users must own their data on Web 3.0, but they must also be able to enjoy complete immunity from governments' actions against their freedom and privacy. Unfortunately, most dApps' interfaces are hosted on centralized servers, making censorship-resistance a distant dream. Some would say that doesn't matter since smart contracts still live on the Blockchain. But when the network's consensus becomes concentrated on the hands of a few, then it would be easy enough to censor transactions linked to such smart contracts. It's only been 7 years since ETH's inception, so I'd say Web 3.0 is still in its infancy. Maybe there's still hope for this new trend after all? Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
First of all we need to spread the knowledge about cryptocurrencies to the people. Because, 70% people still didn't know much about crypto world. When they will come to know then they will be able to use. And then crypto world be able to replace the other one.
Yes. But even with that, I don't think it will be possible for crypto to replace mainstream Fiat currencies. First of all, governments wouldn't allow it because that would mean losing control over people's finances. And second, there's the issue of volatility and limited Internet access worldwide. We can't expect Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency to replace Fiat when such limitations/obstacles exist. It's been 13 years since Bitcoin's inception, but crypto/Blockchain tech still hasn't replaced Fiat. At this stage, we could say crypto will remain as an alternative to the existing monetary system for the foreseeable future. I'm fine with that as long as it stays decentralized. Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
From your suggestion, I suspect they are doing all this to force bitcoin to move POS so it's easier for them to control bitcoin. Their goal is not to ban or kill bitcoin but to control and the only way to control bitcoin is to find a way to force it to move to POS like ETH. If bitcoin goes to Pos it will be the end of us, we will be controlled by the government again, I would rather accept the ban than have to use bitcoin Pos. Bitcoin would be like fiat today.
That's ultimately their agenda. They want to force Bitcoin developers to defect towards PoS, in order to centralize the Blockchain for good. And what better excuse than saying Bitcoin's PoW model is "harmful to the environment"? You can see how ETH turned into a centralized "shitcoin" after it switched to PoS. Many have praised ETH's move towards "energy efficiency", but that has ultimately sacrificed the Blockchain's decentralization and censorship-resistance. ETH is now the governments' playground to do whatever they want with it. Imagine big validators (stakers) censoring transactions in order to comply with US sanctions. That would greatly undermine crypto/Blockchain tech's promise of "banking for the unbanked". Using a centralized PoS coin, would be no different that using banks. I hope Bitcoin stays a PoW coin even if that means a full ban from the EU (and possibly the US). Decentralization needs to prevail in order to help bring people with true financial freedom. How would Bitcoin strive to be different from Fiat if it sacrifices decentralization in favor of performance and cost-efficiency? No one knows what will governments will come up with next, so we should be prepared for the worst. Just my opinion |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
