I believe that there will be a big dump in the market, Those victims are waiting for years now to get their money back and I'm sure that they are itchy to cash it out because they too possibly expect a dump because of their fellow victims. I'm speculating that it would be a sharp drop after the release and would recover slowly again. I expect the price to reach not less than 10k, 10k would be the bottom bottom I guess.
If I hadn't been around for Tim Draper's auction back in the day, I would agree with you that is the only possible outcome. However, given that Blackrock just gave Bitcoin the green light, it's quite possible that they might scoop up all of the BTC being dumped from the mtgox victims (is that what we are?) and more. I wouldn't discount the possibility. I think there's a lot of money on the sidelines waiting to get in at the bottom, and I think the bottom has already started moving up in anticipation. This will be interesting to watch though and I'd want to own some Bitcoin once that is in the rear view. I don't believe that the price that Draper paid in the Silk Road auctions was ever made public. Draper is also an individual investor (with a lot of money), while Blackrock is an investment firm. For Blackrock to buy any amount of coin, they would need to have some kind of hedge fund they are managing to be in need of said coin. I am not aware of this being the case. Further, I don't see any reason why Blackrock would wait until the Gox coins are released to former Gox customers. Institutional traders tend to buy/sell large positions over time, and the bitcoin market is fairly deep. All government auctions will eventually be public. He paid about $19 million for 29,657 bitcoins. Can't find the information on the 2nd auction, have to borrow someones PACER account to search a bit more. Either it's not been saved on RECAP or it's under a different case / docket number that I can't seem to dig up. -Dave I found a few articles from years ago that suggest the ~$640/btc price he paid was about 2% above the then-current market price. Side thought, if they were ALL dumped using some back of the napkin math it's still a bit less then what Tesla and Luna dumped over the last few months.
Although there were some people who did have a lot of BTC tin MtG and they need money NOW I think there are more who are still holding / using BTC and see this as a free investment so they are going to hold it. Also, keep in mind there are going to be tax implications if they sell larger amounts so they would trickle it out anyway.
So, no I'm sticking with that if they are all released and all sold it's not going to matter that much.
-Dave
It seems that the Luna Foundation sold about 80k bitcoin over a three-day period, worth approximately $2.4 billion, and the price declined roughly 20%. It is unclear if the Luna Foundation or Tesla was able to shop around the coin they were wanting to sell to institutional investors to avoid having to sell it on the open market. It is probably more likely that Luna Foundation sold on the open market due to the more-urgent need for liquidity. A sale to an institutional investor is likely similar to having a sale spread out over a long period of time. |
|
|
|
It seems that the fall of that mixer has a little more consequences, unlike all those mixers that suffered a similar fate in the past. The funds that passed through that mixer are obviously under surveillance, and there are more and more cases where users of different platforms report blocked accounts. The thing is even stranger because you didn't even have to be a user of that mixer for it to cause you problems. [img width=400 ]https://i.imgur.com/8ILaMnp.png[/img] SourceThere are reports of some people sending transactions from Tornado Cash to many well-known ETH addresses, including those belonging to various exchanges, and to various celebrities. This is something that will probably cause many exchanges to rethink how they handle customers who have received transactions from illicit sources, and may even lead to litigation surrounding "taint". |
|
|
|
I believe that there will be a big dump in the market, Those victims are waiting for years now to get their money back and I'm sure that they are itchy to cash it out because they too possibly expect a dump because of their fellow victims. I'm speculating that it would be a sharp drop after the release and would recover slowly again. I expect the price to reach not less than 10k, 10k would be the bottom bottom I guess.
If I hadn't been around for Tim Draper's auction back in the day, I would agree with you that is the only possible outcome. However, given that Blackrock just gave Bitcoin the green light, it's quite possible that they might scoop up all of the BTC being dumped from the mtgox victims (is that what we are?) and more. I wouldn't discount the possibility. I think there's a lot of money on the sidelines waiting to get in at the bottom, and I think the bottom has already started moving up in anticipation. This will be interesting to watch though and I'd want to own some Bitcoin once that is in the rear view. I don't believe that the price that Draper paid in the Silk Road auctions was ever made public. Draper is also an individual investor (with a lot of money), while Blackrock is an investment firm. For Blackrock to buy any amount of coin, they would need to have some kind of hedge fund they are managing to be in need of said coin. I am not aware of this being the case. Further, I don't see any reason why Blackrock would wait until the Gox coins are released to former Gox customers. Institutional traders tend to buy/sell large positions over time, and the bitcoin market is fairly deep. |
|
|
|
This points towards not you key not your coin, especially in the time of crypto bear market, it is better to have your coin on a noncustodial wallet which you have control over.
You don't understand. Coinbase still owns the coins. The company lost $1.1B in revenues, not $1.1B of coins, it's a difference. Coinbase lost $1.1 billion in its most recent quarter. In other words, Coinbase had expenses that exceeded its revenue by $1.1 billion. Coinbase holds coin on behalf of their customers, but they also own a lot of coin on their own account. About half of the loss was actually an accounting entry that caused Coinbase to report the lowered value of its coin that it owns when compared to its previous quarter.
With their tie-in with blackrock and some other things that they have said about 'large investors' and 'institutional investors' I wonder if they are going to slowly transition away from the small retail market (read people like us) and move to the bigger players and let them handle the front end so to speak. They would let E*Trade deal with me for my buying and selling of investment crypto and they just handle the back end. No real idea, just speculation but I have seen a lot of similar speculation.
Coinbase already enjoys what I assume to be a huge profit margin when dealing with their retail customers. Their retail customers are likely to be more employee/time intensive, but I would think many tasks relating to the servicing of retail accounts are automated. Coinbase already has the infrastructure in place to service these accounts. I think it would probably be more likely for a newer exchange to outsource the retail servicing to the likes of eTrade. |
|
|
|
The beauty of Git is that it's decentralized. Not in the traditional way, maybe, but anyone who clones a GitHub repo, holds the entire repository on their hard drive, including full commit history back to the very first commit.
Git is not decentralized. It just makes it more difficult to "delete" something if it is part of a git-based repo. This is why if there is ever any kind of private key or "secret" committed to a GitHub (or other git-based) repo, the "secret" needs to be invalidated, and no longer be used. If a repo is removed from GitHub (by the owner of the repo, or by GitHub), if you do not already have a local copy of the repo, it is not possible to obtain a copy, and authoritatively know you have the same code as was on the repo. |
|
|
|
That's because some have said that Mr. Trump could be constitutionally barred from seeking the presidency again if the investigation, which is apparently related to his handling of sensitive presidential records, results in a conviction.
The qualifications for someone to be eligible to serve as President of the US are: *Be a natural-born citizen of the US *be 35 years old *be a resident of the US for 14 years It is not a requirement to not have a politically motivated prosecution by the party in power against the leader of the opposition party. It is not possible for Congress to impose additional qualifications above the above-cited qualifications. This is something that was decided in US Term Limits, Inc v Thornton. The Supreme Court ruled that the requirements to hold office stated in the Consitution are the only requirements to hold said office. The case in question was regarding the ability of state legislatures to impose additional qualifications to become a Congressman, but the principle applies to the office of the president as well. I'm torn on whether democrats actually want Trump to run in 2024 or not.
I think they want him to be part of the political conversation. Trump is someone to motivates his opponents to vote. Democrats have little more than abstract failure to run on, but if they can make the election about Trump, their turnout will be greater than it otherwise would be. It is hard to say if they actually want him to run again. There are a lot of people who believe the election was held in a way that was unfair to Trump in 2020. There were also many people who voted for Biden because they believed he would be moderate, and a unifier, both of which turned out to be false. Early polling generally shows Trump with a modest lead against both Biden and Harris in a 2024 matchup. |
|
|
|
Sorry, I just saw this post due to Pmalek's bump. A good lawyer/legal team will only help at the margins. If an exchange has a loosing case, a competent legal team will tell the exchange to return the money/coin. And not to pick on any person or country in particular, but how do you think a citizen of a third world African country (for example) with less than $1000 to their name is going to fare trying to sue Coinbase, even if they have a winning case? Probably not very high, although if Coinbase were to do this on any kind of regular basis, I am sure that there will be a number of lawyers willing to accept their case Pro Bono, and lawyers may be willing to accept the case Pro Bono even if it is an isolated incident. I think the risk to Coinbase loosing a case when they took $1000 is more reputational than anything. If they were to lose this type of case, they would have trouble attracting and retaining customers. I also don't think the fact that exchange customers being unsecured creditors of said exchange is anything new. This is exactly what happened when Gox failed years ago. Yes, but it is helpful to see it in writing, especially when exchanges keep pushing their "Funds are safu" and "You deposits are insured" and other such nonsense to fool people in to thinking they aren't putting everything at risk by deposit their coins to such exchanges. The relationship between exchanges and their customers should be more clear. I suspect exchanges haven't done this in the past because of the hysteria surrounding Coinbase making this disclosure. The "insurance" claims are often not much more than marketing gimmicks, and often after reading the fine print, the insurance coverage is often very narrow, and covers things that have not frequently ultimately resulted in exchange customers loosing their money. |
|
|
|
Would that make much difference, though? Currently, excluded DT1-members can still downvote others. That would be the main difference. Is it really a problem if a small number of people are "downvoting" (excluding people on their trust list) people who perhaps should not be excluded from DT2? You made a joke about a 51% attack against the DT system, but I would say that for the trust system to work, the majority of participants need to be "honest". I don't think it is a major issue if a small number of people are on DT that maybe shouldn't be on DT, but if there are many, there is an underlying problem with the selection process.
I am not sure I understand the benefit of the proposal in the OP. I understand that theymos crafted the trust system so that a diverse set of people will be on DT. From what I can tell, it will be a requirement for everyone on DT1 to have the same set of people added to their trust list, which removes this diversity. |
|
|
|
Playing the Devil's Advocate, does everyone truly believe that the fees alone would be enough to subsidize the miners when the block rewards go close to zero? Or is it a situation of "let's wait and see" It's more like a "discuss, speculate, wait and see" situation. If the fees alone aren't enough to make the system survive, then it's probably because it's already dead. To explain my previous utterly philosophical sentence that I'm proud of: If the fees alone can't sustain the network, it's probably because there's no activity at all (or much less). There are lots of halvings before the subsidy drop to minimum, and hence much time left to witness some serious recognition. If there's exponentially more activity in 10, 20, 30 years, we can be more assured about sustainability. In general, I would agree with this point. I think the question of tail emission is more about who should pay for security. If someone is holding their coins for a long time, they have the benefit of the security of the network, while someone who is sending many transactions will need to pay transaction fees to the miners, which ultimately pay for this security. There is also the point that someone who is paying a transaction fee is also paying for the service of getting their transaction confirmed, and for the block space necessary to include their transaction in the blockchain. |
|
|
|
Some of the "classified" documents the national archives says it retrieved previously was a latter from Obama to Trump as Obama was leaving the Presidency, and a letter from NK leader Kim Jun Un, both of which have been public for years.
Well, looks like some of the "classified" documents the FBI seized were "classified/top secret/sensitive compartmented information". Basically as top secret as it gets. He had boxes and boxes of them, sitting in his basement. And no, it doesn't matter if he declassified them You just listed all of the potential classification categories that the government could have given the documents. It is well known that the government tends to overclassify documents that really do not need to be classified. Trump had the ultimate authority to declassify the documents in question. It would be stupid for Trump to not declassify a document he intended to bring to his home -- it is trivial for him to declassify a document. And no, if the documents have anything to do with national security (which is what the warrant said), it doesn't matter if he declassified them (and he probably didn't actually declassify them). Hiding sensitive government records related to national security in your basement is called espionage.
I have not seen any evidence the documents in question would threaten national security if released to the public. He could have given them back a year ago when they asked nicely.
Or a few months ago when he was subpoenaed.
Or a few weeks ago when officials flew down to ask in person.
Are you aware that they "asked him nicely"? Or that they even asked at all? Who is the source of these claims? Do you believe the same FBI that used oppo research sourced by Russians in 2016 which started Russia gate are to be trusted in their claims? Better yet, do you think Merrick Garland should be trusted? Raiding the former President's private home for classified documents -- I'm sure this had nothing to do with politics. Apparently a 4 year Russian collusion witch hunt and two impeachments isn't enough. Raid the man's private home when he isn't President anymore, and then present some nonsensical cover story about classified documents. FBI didn't seem to concerned about classified documents on a private email server with Hillary Clinton, did they? Wonder what changed. If the documents were such a threat to national security, there is no reason why the FBI would have waited over a month to get a warrant. |
|
|
|
I'm not familiar with tornado cash whatsoever, and I'm pretty ignorant about smart contracts too, but I did take a look at the article and I think what needs to happen is for this action to be challenged via the legal system, lest it set a precedent that might put into motion all of those github removals and negative actions against bitcoin that you suggested could happen.
I am not a lawyer myself but haven't we already had such a precedent[1] where the US Government tried to prohibit the distribution of open-source code and where the court ruled out that code is speech and therefore protected by the First Amendment? In this case, the US Government also attempts to censor free speech expressed via computer language, thereby violating the said amendment. https://www.eff.org/ru/deeplinks/2015/04/remembering-case-established-code-speechBased on the article you cited, the case in question was never appealed, and only cases at the appellate level or higher are actually case law. However, I do believe that the US Supreme Court would likely agree with the district court ruling. The problem is that a third party has a long hill to climb if GitHub removes content and is unwilling to fight back. GitHub has its own free speech rights, which would include its right to not publish something. In this case, Tornado Cash developers would likely need to prove that GitHub was acting as an arm of the government when they took down their repo. |
|
|
|
Now he's not even able to post here anymore
He is not able to post here anymore? OgN is referring to Vod. If what OgN says is true about Vod not being able to post here anymore, my speculation is that there is a restraining order. I don't really want to get into details of potential off-topic areas of discussion here.... but when there are various disputes between members who had historically been in default trust - and even if they are sometimes (or is it frequently?) being included in the trust lists of other members (who are DT1), then there seems to be topicality here.. unless we can be pointed to some other thread in which we might come across this information -- and there are ONLY so many hours in the day to perhaps get exposed to various topics.. or even knowing where such detailed discussion might exist on the forum... So in regards to Vod no longer posting, I was presuming death or disability.. but sure, you (PrimeNumber7) may well know more than me (even though you are using the word - "speculation").. because I am just going by an abrupt stop from Vod in posting without my having had come across any explanation and realizing that Vod had been having health issues and even perhaps coming across references to that subsequent to Vod's discontinuing to post (even though at the same time, I had also come across several back and forth squabbles that sometimes seemed to get quite intense between Vod and some other members including but not limited to OgNasty.. and then some of the seeming strangeness of the squabbles continuing even though Vod was no longer posting (or maybe no longer able to post for reasons other than my presumptions)... If there is some other thread or information source for where there is information of anything other than death/disability of Vod or otherwise voluntary discontinuance (which would be less than a restraining order).. then I would be interested in having that pointed out. Over the years, I have seen various flame wars between OgN and Vod, with a lot of name calling. I think a lot of the dispute between the two was regarding each of their DT statuses, although I think their dispute goes deeper than that. The specific post that I remember reading that made me believe that a restraining order may be involved is this post, specifically this sentence: (appears to be referring to OgN) I probably will not be allowed to have any more contact with him after this week.
I also vaguely remember OgN threatening to get his lawyer involved in the situation, which if I am remembering correctly, would give credence to my speculation. |
|
|
|
It is important to emphasize that Tornado cash is not a company but a smart contract that no particular person controls; it is essentially as censorship-resistant and decentralized as the underlying blockchain upon which it is built. In other words, it cannot be "banned" easily. I don't think it is legal for Tornado Cash to be on the OFAC SDN list. I don't think it meets the criteria. The fact that Tornado Cash is not an actual entity (nor a person) makes it difficult to get it off the SDN list. I am not an expert in the relevant law, but most likely, someone who sends/receives coin to/from the Tornado Cash smart contract and subsequently encounters problems would need to pursue litigation. Tornado Cash has essentially been "banned" via intimidation. That means the US government is threatening severe consequences for using this particular smart contract. From a technical perspective, nothing is preventing an arbitrary person from sending an arbitrary amount of coin to the smart contract address, however, I think few (if any) people will because of these threats. So, the question that bothers me is could the same happen to Bitcoin? What will happen to Bitcoin if the US Government suddenly decides to take down its Github repos?
See my above comments. The Biden administration is not exactly known for its competence, or its ability to follow the law. From a technical perspective, many people have copies of the code for bitcoin core, and people would need to obtain the code from what they believe to be a reliable source if they need the code for whatever reason. However, I would again refer you to my comments about the intimidation by the US government. And yet CoinJoin projects on GitHub like Wasabi are never shut down. Hmmm. LOL. Using automated tools, it is possible to match the inputs and outputs of CJ and Wasabi transactions. |
|
|
|
Now he's not even able to post here anymore
He is not able to post here anymore? OgN is referring to Vod. If what OgN says is true about Vod not being able to post here anymore, my speculation is that there is a restraining order. |
|
|
|
I found it interesting that he tested possibly so many times including after when he “recovered”. If he is able to serve his entire term, and runs for reelection, i would not be surprised if Biden were to “get” Covid and he uses that as an excuse to not campaign and/or debate.
Despite reality, I wouldn't be surprised if you think the reason there is no presidential debate before 2022 is because Biden (or whoever is on the D ticket) is too scared/weak/corrupt/... There is no reason why the two candidates' campaigns cannot directly set the terms of the debates. The commission unilaterally canceled the second debate in 2020 and unilaterally changed the terms of the debate to suit Biden's liking. The moderators they have chosen have not exactly been neutral, for example in 2016, one joined the Obama team days after moderating a debate, and opinion hosts have moderated debates. Trump tested positive for covid and refused a virtual debate, which is basically what you're claiming Biden will try to do, for the record. Trump was asking for an in-person debate, and never refused a virtual debate, it was the commission that unilaterally canceled the debate. And also, Trump will cry about literally any rational moderator because he spews irrational nonsense/lies all the time. What are they going to do, find a moderator that will agree Trump won the 2020 election?
without the presidential commission, the nominees for President nominated by the Democrats and Republicans can negotiate with each other on various terms of the debate, including the moderator. |
|
|
|
Could be a completely separate criminal investigation surrounding all the stuff he stole on his way out of the white house....I thought he'd be getting a pass due to the whole trying to overthrow the government thing....Surely all the 'but her emails' people will be equally outraged about Trumps handling of clasified documents right....right? ....... As President, Trump has the unilateral authority to decide that documents were not classified. Some of the "classified" documents the national archives says it retrieved previously was a latter from Obama to Trump as Obama was leaving the Presidency, and a letter from NK leader Kim Jun Un, both of which have been public for years. This raid on a former President that is a political opponent of the current regime is unprecedented in the United States. It is something that is common in third-world countries. So I guess it's either time to go visit vlad or announce he's running for President again.
Trump threatened to bomb Moscow if Putin tried to invade Ukraine. Biden's energy policy has resulted in the invasion of Ukraine profitable for Putin, even after accounting for sanctions, and Moscow selling gas at below market prices (and the cost of the war itself). It was no mistake that Putin waited for Biden to get into office to start the war. |
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure people still use them. Even better if they use something they use much heavier encryption (such as WarpWallet).
The idea of simply remembering your money is appealing to me (but I don't dare risk it for a large amount). What I don't understand is why don't they use the hash function millions of times to make their brain wallet even more secure? I'm pretty sure some people do that. And I'm pretty sure some others are searching for it too. But isn't that what WarpWallet was created for? 524,288 times scrypt, followed by 65,536 times pbkdf2. A simple manual "brute-force" tells me that "satoshi" was used to deposit 0.0003 BTC in 2015. It wasn't moved out instantly (only after 7 blocks). <> The scope of realistic brain wallets is very small when compared to all potential private keys. Requiring an adversary to do a million times more work might sound like a lot, but compared to all potential private keys, it really is not. If you're the only one who uses 1,276,816 rounds of hashing, the number of potential wallets that can be found is limited to only your wallets, versus many different wallets that all use only one round. How is someone supposed to remember the exact number of hashing rounds? I think in both the WarpWallet and your proposed ~1.2 million rounds of hashing implementations, you will need to either document the rounds of hashing, or rely on a third party to help calculate the private key, and I don't think this meets the definition of a brain wallet. |
|
|
|
I found it interesting that he tested possibly so many times including after when he “recovered”. If he is able to serve his entire term, and runs for reelection, i would not be surprised if Biden were to “get” Covid and he uses that as an excuse to not campaign and/or debate.
Despite reality, I wouldn't be surprised if you think the reason there is no presidential debate before 2022 is because Biden (or whoever is on the D ticket) is too scared/weak/corrupt/... There is no reason why the two candidates' campaigns cannot directly set the terms of the debates. The commission unilaterally canceled the second debate in 2020 and unilaterally changed the terms of the debate to suit Biden's liking. The moderators they have chosen have not exactly been neutral, for example in 2016, one joined the Obama team days after moderating a debate, and opinion hosts have moderated debates. |
|
|
|
Dont do this. Hashing a pass phrase will not result in additional entropy. If an adversary were to know that you hashed a brain wallet pass phrase, they could do the same to brain wallet candidate pass phrases they believe you are likely to use. It does the same harm it does for an attacker to know that my password is 18 characters long. It lowers my security, but it's infeasible to break it if chosen properly. Same happens with more hashes; if an adversary knew that I'm hashing a million times, he'd need a million times his computational power to do the same work. The scope of realistic brain wallets is very small when compared to all potential private keys. Requiring an adversary to do a million times more work might sound like a lot, but compared to all potential private keys, it really is not. |
|
|
|
|
Re the topic: it is unusual for someone to be a “newbie” about bitcoin anymore. There are many people who know about bitcoin that are not on the forum for a variety of reasons. Some of these people will eventually register on the forum and their forum rank will be “newbie”, but this is not reflective of their knowledge.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
