Dann bleibt es wenigstens hier spannend, dass der BTC noch von einem Shitcoin ausperformt wird halte ich Stand jetzt für fast ausgeschlossen. Aber zwischen den 3 wird es bestimmt noch sehr eng, denn 12% sind so gut wie ncihts bei den Shitcoins...
Das stimmt, aktuell haben wir 3 Altcoins, die alle ähnlich schlecht performen und daher eine Chance haben, der am wenigsten schlechte Altcoin aus unserem Paket zu werden.  Und hoffe wir bringen so etwas für 2023 wieder zusammen?
Wenn genug Interesse besteht, können wir gerne ein Bitcoin vs. Alts 2023 machen aber wenn sam00 es veranstalten möchte, würde ich ihm hier den Vortritt lassen. Aktuell gibt es ja 2 Bitcoin vs. Alts 2022, wenn wir das eins mit 10 bis 15 Teilnehmern hätten wäre das vielleicht die bessere Option. |
|
|
|
Schon wieder du - kannst du deine Argumente nicht normal und sachlich vorbringen ohne direkt persönlich zu werden? Ich habe mit Sicherheit kein Brett vorm Kopf, den Teil kannst du dir ein einer normalen und zivilisierten Diskussion einfach sparen. Denk' mal drüber nach.
Das gleiche könnte ich über dich sagen und deinem Beitrag, der mal wieder nur heiße Luft zum Besten gibt... Du bist doch keine Karen oder willst du den Manager sprechen um dich bei ihm zu echauffieren? Eine Dienstleistung bedeutet, dass der Dienstleister (hier die Bank) ihre Konditionen nennt und selbstverständlich können sich die Konditionen im Laufe der Zeit ändern, insbesondere bei neu aufkommenden Technologien, die bisher (zumindest ggf. aus Sicht der Bank) wenig erprobt sind. Das einzige, woran sich die Bank halten muss, sind Gesetze. Alles andere liegt im Ermessen der Bank, also des Dienstleisters, schließlich muss die Bank es ausführen und hat nachher etwaige Probleme am Hals, wenn das Geld irgendwo versickert. Denn dann kommen erst recht Beschwerden der Kunden, selbst wenn die Bank nichts dazu kann. Und genau sowas will die Bank vermeiden, völlig verständlich. Weil wie es dann wieder so läuft, jammern alle herum, weil sie ihre Shitcoins versenkt haben und machen die Bank dafür verantwortlich. Siehe Terra Luna und viele mehr. Dass die Bank darauf keine Lust hat, ist völlig verständlich und legitim. |
|
|
|
Besides market cap being a misleading measure, isn't the entire topic flawed? Being a store of value, and being a highly appreciated asset doesn't seem to have any direct relation.
I have to disagree here because issuing more coins constantly can really kill an (Alt)coin. Not today, not tomorrow, not in 2 weeks but maybe in 2 oder 4 years. In fact, denying that inflation for Altcoins is a big problem and this talking point was first brought up by Shitcoin marketing. It is stupid Shitcoin propaganda, which is pushed constantly by leading centralized Shitcoins such like Polkadot to get more gullible bagholders. Bitcoin is designed as a store of value for a reason. And it's extremely hard to change that, which is very positive. Of course, Shitcoins want us to believe that issuing more coins is something good. There's a whole bunch of Shitcoin propaganda circulating around that bringing new coins into circulation is somehow beneficial for the coin itself. Most of it is misleading. I would say, yes it is beneficial for centralized PoS Altcoin developers and rich stakers. And for everyone else, it's negative. So yes, it's positive for probably 10% of the coinholders and not beneficial for probably 90%. By calculating the numbers from Polkadot, it's pointing out how insane such an inflation will devalue some inflationary PoS-Shitcoins: Example Polkadot: Polkadot is considered a highly inflationary altcoin based on nPoS (which is practically dPoS). According to current sources, Polkadot's inflation amounts to about 10% annually, which depends on how much Polkadot is staked. But normally it’s around 10% annually. In addition, excess Polkadot from inflation can circulate back to Polkadot founders even with a different amount of staked Polkadot, as well as confiscated Polkadot, which can be used or burned by Polkadot developers. However, there are only a few sources about Polkadot's inflation, since Polkadot's statements of most official sources are limited to the first year or Polkadot even completely deleted most previously available sources, like here ( https://w3f-research.readthedocs.io/en/latest/polkadot/economics/1-token-economics.html#inflation-model) It’s not available anymore.  Which is definitely a very big red flag!! Some information is only available on third-party sites anymore which analyzed Polkaot’s documents when they were still up, such as here: https://www.coinbase.com/de/cloud/discover/solutions/polkadot-token-economicsCurrently, Polkadot has a circulating supply of approximately 1,150,000,000 Polkadot at a price of $7.36 per Polkadot, which results in a current market capitalisation of approximately $8,464,000,000. Assuming 10% annual inflation, the amount of Polkadot would increase to an amount of about 16,500,000,000 Polkadot by 2050, which is 12 times more compared to now. At current prices of $7.36 per Polkadot, it would mean an adjusted market capitalisation of approximately $120,000,000,000,000,, which would be worrisome 1400 percent above today's market capitalisation. As a reminder: Bitcoin is only just under 10 percent here. Anyone who knows about markets can only conclude that the price per Polkadot will decrease massively by 2050. Considering the same market capitalisation in 2022 vs. 2050, the price per Polkadot would have to decrease from $7.36 today to $0.51 (!) in 2050. Conclusion: Polkadot is an inflationary Shitcoin where large quantities of Polkadot Coins coming into circulation in the future will go to rich stakers... The price per Polkadot Coin will drop massively when looking at Polkadots adjusted market capitalisation (for example 2050). That's why I wouldn't touch inflationary Shitcoins. I’m not talking about Ethereum here because Ethereum is different from my analysis. If we apply my analysis on Ethereum, yes, we will see some red flags. But we will also see that for the current situation, inflation isn’t a problem for Ethereum currently. But it can change, which is a red flag in my opinion. It’s not predictable. Or take Avalanche, it’s also capped. But it could be changed quite easily which is also a red flag. And Ethereum + Avalanche are already one of the best Altcoins.
There's one parameter, among others, that you don't take into consideration, and it's very important: monetary policy. Inflationary or not, infinite supply or not, it doesn't matter if you don't look at the monetary policy.
Yes, monetary policy can be helpful but it's up to the Altcoin developers which need to be honest. It's not necessarily bad if the Ethereum devs were elected because by electing we could remove them if we don't agree with their actions.
Take Ethereum as an example. Bitcoin's and Ethereum's monetary policies aren't the same. Bitcoin's is consisted of inflexibility. We know that there will be 21 million coins, and they'll come into circulation according to the given schedule. We've accepted this rule, and we're building on top of it. There's no going back. Bitcoin's monetary policy is non-negotiatable, and it is in fact the single most significant feature we all admire. It is characterized by stability, and censorship resistance.
Ethereum, on the other hand, is characterized by flexibility. The developers have said it themselves that they haven't programmed the proper policy yet. It isn't set in stone yet, and it'll most likely never be. Vitalik, as a highly influencive leader, might as well decide to censor certain transactions (it has happened more than once), or mess with the supply. Therefore, they're apples and oranges in the end. I wouldn't put my money to such subjectively driven project in the long run, even if it's highly appreciated.
I can agree here, Ethereum is quite different from Bitcoin and it's legit to try out new ideas. I can support that. But the issue is when an Altcoin is flawed from the beginning. Not just technically flawed, like Solana but also fundamentally flawed. And PoS Coins tend to be fundamentally flawed. It's legit to try to solve these problems. But the problem is fraudulent marketing to get more bagholders. Shitcoins are good at fraudulent marketing. There are various examples for misleading marketing like miscalculating tx/second or downplaying inflationary tokenomics where rich stakers are profiteers or calling dPoS nPoS etc etc. Shitcoin marketing can be very misleading. Ethereum isn't a coin, which is coming to my mind when bringing up fraudulent Altcoins, but for example, Polkdot is (inflation) or Solana (flawed tech), too. It's already possible to see the disaster coming. That's what my topic is about: calculating ourself if there will be issues in the future, for specific coins.
Anybody please correct me if I'm wrong. Ethereum's EIP-1559 update doesn't necessarily make it deflationary.
You are right, Ethereum is only deflationaryif enough fees are burned. There's a a statistics site about it: https://ultrasound.money/
Altcoins have many risks and one of them is minting from thin air. Their developer teams can mint new flow of token if they want to use the Mint function. They can mint it to resolve the case of hacks, blockchain compromises or to benefit themselves and make investors poorer.
The risk is we don't know what they will do with that Mint function. If anyone has yet known about the risk, do a research about Terra $LUNA that is rebranded to Terra Classic $LUNC.
+1 Very important point. |
|
|
|
Natürlich muss alles stimmen. Aber nichts ist unmöglich.
Aber das 5:0 von Leverkusen gegen Union hätte man nicht vorhersagen können. Selbst wenn die Tipps so gut sind, wie bei Bongline.  Dass Union es in Leverkusen schwer haben würde, war ja vielleicht erwartbar aber so eine Klatsche ist dann doch überraschend... Mal hoffen, dass sie jetzt keinen Knick in die ansonsten bisher extrem gute Saison bekommen. Nächste Woche dürfte es mit Tipps im Tippspiel jedenfalls schon schwerer werden, viele Punkte zusammeln, wie mit Spielen Stuttgart gegen Hertha, Leipzig gegen Freiburg, und Frankfurt gegen Hoffenheim. Der Rest kann auch für Überraschungen gut sein. Mit so einer engen Tabelle im Tippspiel als auch in der Liga bleibt es jedenfalls spannend. |
|
|
|
Mal wieder eine Erinnerung, dass das "Diversifizieren" bei Kryptowährungen nicht anwendbar ist, wie es z.B. bei Aktien der Fall ist. Bestes Beispiel wieder einmal unser Bitcoin vs. Alts 2022, in welchem alle 6 nominierten Altcoins mehr als 50% gegenüber Bitcoin verloren haben: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5380620.msg61251298#msg61251298Es sind allerdings auch richtig üble Shitcoins dabei, die als sehr spekulativ einzustufen sind und daher nur bedingt repräsentativ für "Altcoins" sind. |
|
|
|
Bin schon auf die neue Auswertung gespannt, WX hat ja weiter Federn lassen müssen  . Auswertung ist nun fertig. Anbei die Auswertung für den Monat September 2022: Zuerst die Übersicht als Referenz: 
Auswertung für Oktober 2022:  Gerechnet in USD hat diesen Monat XAYA mit ( 75,08%) gewonnen, vor Cum Rocket. Den schlechtesten Wert verzeichnet erneut Waves Exchange mit einem Minus von 45,94%. Gerechnet in USD hat seit Beginn Cum Rocket gewonnen, mit einem Verlust von ( 54,86%), knapp vor XAYA ( 56,65%). Der bisher führende Altcoin (Waves Exchange) fällt nur noch auf Platz 3 zurück ( 66,97%). Damit sind alle ausgewählten Kryptowährungen weiterhin weniger Wert als im Januar diesen Jahres, als sie ausgewählt wurden.  Den schlechtesten Wert verzeichnet Sundae Swap mit einem Minus von 99,04%. Bitcoin hat 5,54% in USD im Vergleich zum letzten Monat verloren und unser Altcoinpaket wurde von Bitcoin diesen Monat um 6,84% von Bitcoin ausperformt. Seit Beginn der Aufzeichnung hat unser Altcoinpaket sogar 49,43% gegenüber Bitcoin verloren. Weiterhin sehr bitter also für unser Altcoinpaket (Shitcoinpaket). Unter den Shitcoins ist es jedenfalls sehr spannend mit 3 Stück in einem Bereich von 12%, die dieses Bitcoin vs. Alts gewinnen könnten, nicht jedoch gegen Bitcoin selbst gewinnen. Denn alle haben sie gegenüber Bitcoin mindestens 50% an Wert verloren... |
|
|
|
lol Echt jetz? Hab mir grad mal ein paar der "5 Sterne Bewertungen" durchgelesen und war doch sehr verwundert, daß da sooft Namen von Support-Mitabeitern genannt werden und denen persönlich gedankt wird. "Danke Rocco", "Danke Rose", "Danke Richard", "Danke Mr.Thomas", "Danke Patricia", "Danke Garry", geht echt endlos so weiter.... Ist halt auch garnicht auffällig, wenn die positiven Bewertungen durch die Bank gleich aufgebaut sind. Mit solchen Fake-Nutzern delegitimiert sich der Dienst eigentlich nur selbst, wenn sich interessierte Nutzer die Bewertungen wirklich aufmerksam durchlesen. Auf der ersten Seite nicht eine 5-Sterne-Bewertung (mit Text) in der nicht persönlich einem Mitarbeiter gedankt wird. Sieht mir auch so aus, als ob viele positive Bewertungen nicht echt sind. Klar, die Konkurrenz kann auch negative Bewertungen fälschen, um den Dienst schlechtzureden aber wenn das Unternehmen es nötig hat, da positive Fakebewertungen aufzufahren, ist das schon ziemlich bedenklich... |
|
|
|
Union starting to struggle massively.  Away games have been a weak spot for Union but losing 5-0 in Leverkusen is very hard for Union. Congrats to cls63 for very good predictions and winning our current round.
Still sad to see 2 participants forgetting to put in their bets: my personal recommendation is to put in the predictions very early, I'm even betting some weeks in advance in case I miss to submit my bets or in case we have a round mid-week. It's always possible to forget it. Sumbitting in advance will prevent from losing many points, especially safe ones (Bayern, Dortmund, Leipzig). It's still possible to adjust on fridays. But putting in predictions early will save many unecessarily missed points. We have seen so many participants missing some predictions already, so predicting in advance is really helpful in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Good news from Betnomi: Updates are in progress or already finished and we can see our bet history again, yaay. But some issues I've identified so far: We can't visit beyone the first page, when selecting page 2 etc., no bets are displayed:   Personally I would add some more quick options to select a timeframe to view our bets like - last 14 days - last month - last year etc.
And most likely, there is still an issue for displaying correct bet amounts (it seems to be working at least for our win amount for successful bets):  It's all 0,00$ currently or 0,01$.
But good job so far, right in time for some World Cup bets on Betnomi. |
|
|
|
Predictability of the adjusted market capitalisation means if it’s possible for us to find out if the amount of a certain cryptocurrency in circulation will be known in the future. We will need the number of coins in order to be able to classify a certain market capitalisation in the future.
On my scale of criterion when checking a cryptocurrency or new project, market capitalization is usually low on the list on what matters when deciding whether or not to buy that coin or token. Inflation is a very important criteria in my opinion but if you are just loking for a quick profit, inflation isn't an important metric. Inflation is getting relevant for your coin in the long term. Short-term, inflation can be significant if it's a highly inflationary DeFi shitcoin where 50% of the supply is dumped in the first year. But still, scarce coins will attract more buyers and especially large ones (institutional investors), even in short-term considerations. If the amount of coins in circulation of a cryptocurrency cannot be predicted properly even in 20 years, such a cryptocurrency can be considered dangerous or unpredictable and this is an important reason to avoid this cryptocurrency. Because Altcoin developers already know why they are not disclosing such important information. But knowledge on how to check predictable market capitalization would help save a lot of time in checking out shitcoins; if it is not possible to calculate the market cap, due to infinite supply or uncapped supply, then it is not worth considering at all. 99% of altcoin are already shitcoins. Clouds of secrecy around the functioning of a project is highly indicative that what you're looking at on your screen is a scam. That's true, most Altcoins are Shitcoins. But I wouldn't call all Shitcoins which are obfuscating their coin metrics a scam, but still a very shady move of course. Let's take Polkadot, Polkadot is obfuscating statements about their circulating supply in the future. They have deleted documents and even the original documents were rather nebulous. It's a common tactic for Shitcoins to keep it vague and even from Ethereum we know that decisionmaking is very centralized. The difficulty bomb got delayed multiple times. Now Ethereum is advertising to be deflationary (if enough fees are burned) but it's very hard to predict, how many fees will be burned. Still, Ethereum can be considered far more scarce compared to Polkadot, where roughly 10% more coins are issued every year. Especially large investors don't like unpredictability. And we, as small investors, have many reasons to reject unpredictable and inflationary Shitcoins, like Polkadot, too. You are right that it's essential to know how to evaluate marketcapitalisations of different coins and the Altcoin industry is also trying to make it very difficult for us to find it out. (advertise good characteristics, hide bad ones; it's how Altcoin marketing is done).
In my case of deciding which project to invest on, I usually don't sight the influence of market capitalization even those it seems to be very very important, I usually look out for their Utilities, their road map, what have they done and stuff like. Let's not forget that every established project today were once new too.
That's true, when evaluating an Altcoin, many characteristics need to be checked. Inflation is only one of those but a very important one, especially in the long term, in my opinion. As we have seen, the bear market can really destroy weak shitcoins as it exposes all the weaknesses of Altcoins. |
|
|
|
but that last minute goal from Schalke was not necessary, that blow up my exact score in that game.
+1, exactly! Schalke should have just taken the loss and move on... But no, unfortunately not. And for whatever reason I was expecting for Leipzig to lose in Hoffenheim, as Leipzig has been very weak so far away this season. Looks like top clubs are getting back to winning as usual, as Dortmund, Leipzig and Bayern have been showing strong performances recently. But Bayern was a bit lucky today against Hertha, Bayern played well but still Hertha wasn't far away from getting a point against Bayern. Great goal from Choupo-Moting, too. Unfortunately, some participants missed submissions today. There are still 2 games tomorrow and if Union can't win, Bayern will be first in the table. |
|
|
|
Nice to see so many members participating here! As promised, I've left a good amount of Merit for valid submissions. I really didn't expect how many members will participate here, so it took over 2 hours to review submissions and distribute almost 400 Merit. Great job everyone and many thanks to ChiBitCTy for organizing this pumpkin carving contest. There should be a Pumpkin Badge 🎃 along with the Art badge 🖌️ and the Pizza 🍕 badge
+1 Would be nice to introduce a pumpkin badge. |
|
|
|
Es gibt Neuigkeiten beim Kürbis Wettbewerb. Der Faden zum Wählen des Gewinners wurde eröffnet. Member+ können bis zum 10.11.22 abstimmen. Ich drücke cygan die Daumen! Pumpkin Carving Contest -Poll- Vote NowDanke für die Info, sonst hätte ich das fast vergessen, dort noch wie versprochen etwas Merit zu verteilen. Mit so vielen Teilnehmern (65) hätte ich wirklich nicht gerechnet und es sind wirklich einige Abgaben dabei, die sehr viel Arbeit waren. So bin ich auch insgesamt fast 400 Merit dort losgeworden, weil es so viele gute Abgaben gab. Mal sehen, wer gewinnt aber es scheint diese Abgabe aktuell der Favorit zu sein. In der Vergangenheit hatte taufik123 schon beim Zeichenwettbewerb 2019 gewonnen:  Auf jeden Fall verdienen einige Teilnehmer dort ein bisschen Merit also wenn wer etwas über hat, einfach mal reinschauen.
Es wird ja, wenn ich es richtig gelesen habe, noch 4 weitere Gewinnspiele für solch eine Wallet geben.
Das stimmt plus das 1Miau hier bei uns auch ein Gewinnspiel mit dem gleichen Preis am Laufen hat. Gibt also noch viele Möglichkeiten auf einen Gewinn. Genau genommen sogar 2 Stück: - In diesem Gewinnspiel gewinnt der Gewinner nicht nur 3,75 mBTC, sondern auch 1 Hardwarewallet von Betnomi. - In diesem Gewinnspiel gewinnt der Gewinner nicht nur 0,5 mBTC, sondern auch 1 Hardwarewallet von Betnomi sowie eine BitcoinRomania Karte von GazetaBitcoin. |
|
|
|
From a speculative point of view, it is essential to understand how to review market capitalisations of cryptocurrencies. Because current market capitalisations will only partially reflect if a cryptocurrency is suitable as a good store of value long term. Current market capitalisations are very deceptive, especially for Shitcoins – caution!
Current market capitalization vs. projected market capitalization When considering market capitalisation, a distinction should be made between current market capitalisation and projected market capitalization. Current market capitalisation only includes all coins having so far entered the circulating supply. Potential inflation by additionally issued coins is not taken into consideration here. Very important to know: - Circulating supply:
Current circulating supply (also including inaccessible coins, such as from lost private keys, etc.). - Total supply:
Current number of all existing coins, including coins which are currently already existing but still blocked by coin developers (e.g. at XRP) or coins which are not yet mined. Burnt coins are not part of it, as such coins do not exist (anymore). - Max(imum) supply:
The definitive (coded) maximum number of coins which can ever exist. For some coins, total supply and maximum supply are identical. - Infinite supply:
Some coins don’t have a caped supply at all and there will be issued more coins constantly.
For such coins, we need to look up properly how many of them will be in circulation at some point of time because such coins are at risk of MASSIVE INFLATION.
Keep in mind when a circulating market capitalisation is given because it’s very deceptive, as it only depicts a temporary state of coins in circulation and possibly many new coins will come inti existence later. It is more reliable to consider an adjusted market capitalisation, where we will always choose a time in the future and look what a specified circulating supply and the resulting market capitalisation will look like. = > Adjusted market capitalization = choosing a time in the future (for example 2050) and comparing how the projected circulating supply and the resulting market capitalisation will look like between two or more coins.
Example Bitcoin: For example, it is known that Bitcoin will have approximately 20,980,000 Bitcoin in circulation in 2050, which at current prices of $20,000 would result in an adjusted market capitalisation of approximately $420,000,000,000. Compared to the current situation of a market capitalisation of approx. 382,800,000,000 USD (at 19,140,000 BTC), it would only be a difference of just under 10 percent. The closer this number goes to 0, the better for storing value. Practically, all other competitors of Bitcoin have significantly higher numbers here.
Example Polkadot: Polkadot is considered a highly inflationary altcoin based on nPoS (which is practically dPoS). According to current sources, Polkadot's inflation amounts to about 10% annually, which depends on how much Polkadot is staked. But normally it’s around 10% annually. In addition, excess Polkadot from inflation can circulate back to Polkadot founders even with a different amount of staked Polkadot, as well as confiscated Polkadot, which can be used or burned by Polkadot developers. However, there are only a few sources about Polkadot's inflation, since Polkadot's statements of most official sources are limited to the first year or Polkadot even completely deleted most previously available sources, like here: https://w3f-research.readthedocs.io/en/latest/polkadot/economics/1-token-economics.html#inflation-model. It’s not available anymore. Which is definitely a very big red flag!!!! Some information is only available on third-party sites anymore which analyzed Polkaot’s documents when they were still up, such as here: https://www.coinbase.com/de/cloud/discover/solutions/polkadot-token-economics. Currently, Polkadot has a circulating supply of approximately 1,150,000,000 Polkadot at a price of $7.36 per Polkadot, which results in a current market capitalisation of approximately $8,464,000,000. Assuming 10% annual inflation, the amount of Polkadot would increase to an amount of about 16,500,000,000 Polkadot by 2050, which is 12 times more compared to now. At current prices of $7.36 per Polkadot, it would mean an adjusted market capitalisation of approximately $120,000,000,000, which would be worrisome 1400 percent above today's market capitalisation. As a reminder: Bitcoin is only just under 10 percent here. Anyone who knows about markets can only conclude that the price per Polkadot will decrease massively by 2050. Considering the same market capitalisation in 2022 vs. 2050, the price per Polkadot would have to decrease from $7.36 today to $0.51 (!) in 2050. Conclusion: Polkadot is an inflationary Shitcoin where large quantities of Polkadot Coins coming into circulation in the future will go to rich stakers... The price per Polkadot Coin will drop massively when looking at Polkadot's adjusted market capitalisation (for example 2050).
Summary Finally, it can be said for solid coins, such as Bitcoin, current market capitalisation and adjusted market capitalisation are very close. For inflationary Shitcoins, current market capitalisation and adjusted market capitalisation is far apart.
Predictability of projected market capitalisations Predictability of the adjusted market capitalisation means if it’s possible for us to find out if the amount of a certain cryptocurrency in circulation will be known in the future. We will need the number of coins in order to be able to classify a certain market capitalisation in the future. If the amount of coins in circulation of a cryptocurrency cannot be predicted properly even in 20 years, such a cryptocurrency can be considered dangerous or unpredictable and this is an important reason to avoid this cryptocurrency. Because Altcoin developers already know why they are not disclosing such important information. If there is no predictability of the projected market capitalisation, you therefore buy the cat in a bag. Lesson of my article: analyzing the long-term assessment of a cryptocurrency as a store of value – by evaluating market capitalisation – and if the Altcoin can match market leader Bitcoin.
Translations: Reserving new translations is currently available. |
|
|
|
This proves DT system is a joke. The joke's on the users who included him: I can't see any misjudgement here because igehhh's left feedbacks are generally of high quality and very beneficial to the community. In addition, igehhh has dedicated some time to compile a valuable list of abusers in the gambling section. Yes, it's not related to trust but it's related to what's beneficial to the forum. Considering his accurate feedbacks and his overall dedication to improve the forum, I trust igehhh's judgement and I don't see any valid arguments which prove otherwise. The joke's on the users who included him:
~
I do not understand. Why is it bad to include igehhh in my trust list? I did not pay attention to his trust list, but I only looked at his trust feedback that he left for others. I haven't noticed any "inaccurate/inappropriate trust actions" from him lately. +1 I don't see anything provably bad in having igehhh on our trust lists. Quite the opposite: his accurate left feedbacks are good reasons to add him on our trust list. |
|
|
|
I guess that Crystal explorer can be moved to the Removed block explorers list. You are right, somehow I missed it. It's moved to "removed Blockexplorers" now. Thank you for confirming this. I also made the change in the translated topic. Much appreciated, as usually! A lot of time it's needed, to pay attention to each line, each separator... For example, in the translated topic, the data from second column (the one related to bech32) doesn't fit on one line, as it happens in your OP. I never figured out why... And I copied exactly the BBCode from your OP. Perhaps, if you want to take a look and see yourself...? Maybe you have a suggestion...? Perhaps I misplaced an operator...? I have no idea. Most likely, we need more _ _ _ (but no stealing from o_e_l_e_o's name  ). Our _ _ _ are limiting column size here and I have removed 2 _ from Recunoaște adresele SegWit (P2SH)?* and removed 6 _ from Utilitate (scor subiectiv ) + added 4_ in general, so we could add 12 _ to your column in question, and it should work like this (just replace in your translated topic our _ _ _ table row) | Nume (link) | Suportă bech32 / Bech32m (P2TR)? | Recunoaște adresele SegWit (P2SH)?* | Utilitate (scor subiectiv ) | Notă acordată de | Comentarii | | __________________________ | _______________________________ | _________________________________ | _________________________ | ________________ | _________________________________________________________ | | Blockchair.com | Da (09/2019) / Da (05/2022) | Da (09/2019) | 8 / 10 Puncte | 1miau | | | Trezor Bitcoin Explorer | Da (11/2019) / Da (05/2022) | Da (11/2019) | 7.5 / 10 Puncte | Saint-loup | Singurul, pe lângă Blockchair, care recunoaște chei zPub | | mempool | Da (10/2020) / Da (05/2022) | Da (10/2020) | 7.5 / 10 Puncte | SFR10 | Interfață frumoasă și foarte detaliat |
.... See code below: [tr]
[td]__________________________[/td]
[td]_______________________________[/td]
[td]_________________________________[/td]
[td]_________________________[/td]
[td]________________[/td]
[td]_________________________________________________________[/td]
[/tr] It should work now. |
|
|
|
Wie sind eure Prognosen auf
- Kurze Sicht 6-12 Monate
- Lange Sicht 5-8 Jahre
Und wie begründet ihr eure Prognose?
Würde mich als ETH HODL'er auch etwas interessieren und schauen was ihr so über ETH denkt / eure Einschätzung ist.
Das dürfte wohl ziemlich mit dem Kursverlauf von Bitcoin korrellieren, da Altcoins in einem Bullenmarkt generell mehr ansteigen und dann im Bärenmarkt auch wieder stärker fallen. Dass Ethereum seit dem Merge besser performt hat, könnte auch daran liegen, dass deutlich weniger Ethereum in Umlauf gekommen ist. Wir hatten dazu im anderen Ethereum-Faden einmal eine Seite herausgesucht, die das neu in Umlauf kommende Ethereum seit dem Merge dokumentiert: https://ultrasound.money/ Da kann man gut sehen, dass die sich in Umlauf befindliche Menge an Ethereum seit ca. einem Monat gut reduziert hat und somit praktisch seit dem Merge kaum gestiegen ist. Generell spricht eine weiter abnehmende Menge dafür, dass auch Ethereum zunehmend als Wertspeicher gesehen wird. Ob der Trend allerdings anhält, wäre die Frage. In einen weiter seitwärts laufenden Markt war zumindest in der Verganenheit Bitcoin preislich die solidere Wahl. Also - kurze Sicht: (6-12 Monate) nah am Bitcoin-Zyklus - lange Sicht: (5-8 Jahre) bei Ethereum aufgrund der doch recht zentralisierten Entscheidungsfindung schwer zu sagen, daher beschränkte ich mich auf 2-3 Jahre und würde vermuten, dass Ethereum nach wie vor nach Bitcoin der wichtigste Altcoin bleibt. Bitcoin zu überholen wird jedoch in 2-3 Jahren nicht funktionieren. |
|
|
|
Mit einer solchen Vormundschaft und Einschränkung der eigenmächtigen Verfügung über das eigene Geld liefern Banken erst Recht Argumente für Bitcoin.
Mein Gott, manche haben so ein Brett vor dem Kopf, das gibt es garnicht! Du wirst es nicht glauben aber die Bank bietet dir eine Dienstleistung an. Als Dienstleister ist es selbstverständlich möglich, die Konditionen festzulegen, das haben Dienstleister so an sich. Das hat nichts mit "Vormundschaft oder Einschränkung" zu tun. Als Kunde kannst du dir den Dienstleister aussuchen, genau wie du dir das Restaurant aussuchen kannst. Wenn der Koch nichts gefälliges auf dem Menü hat, steht es jedem frei, ein anderes Restaurant aufzusuchen. |
|
|
|
Oh nein, mv1986 hat vergessen, die Tipps für das heutige Freitagabendspiel abzugeben... Die anderen Tipps für morgen fehlen auch noch, daher schnell eintragen bevor morgen die restlichen Samstagsspiele an der Reihe sind. Im internationalen Tippspiel ebenfalls. Ich versuche ja immer, die Tipps vorzutragen, sonst denkt man nicht dran und hat dann überall null Punkte.  |
|
|
|
|
12. Marina Rodriguez
11. Daniel Rodriguez
10. Chase Sherman
9. Tagir Ulanbekov
8. Grant Dawson
7. Shayilan Nuerdanbieke
6. Miranda Maverick
5. Mario Bautista
4. Polyana Viana
3. Johnny Munoz Jr
2. Jake Hadley
1. Ramona Pascual
Match 12 winner Total Strikes: 116
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
