It would probably take more than a year to reach $100 unless something could help the price increase drastically before that year. And if that happens, the miners who have switched to mining ETC will feel very happy because they can get big profits after mining ETC for a while. But for now, where the market is still in a bearish or semi-sideways condition, ETC must survive as hard as possible to increase higher later. And hopefully, in the last 3 months, there will be something that will help ETC to get back to $50.
The hype was short-lived as now ETC is trading below $30. I guess the project needs a lot more than just miners to survive in the long run. I don't get why ETC hasn't captured the attention of developers, when it's a PoW alternative to the current PoS version of Ethereum (which has now turned centralized). Maybe it's because ETH is a lot more valuable than ETC itself? If developers would somehow migrate to ETC, then it would've become a huge contender of ETH. I believe $100 can only be reached if there's massive demand for the cryptocurrency on the market or BTC turns extremely bullish in the long run. Otherwise, prices will continue to decline until ETC becomes a worthless "shitcoin". No one knows what will happen in the future, so we can only hope for the best. Just my thoughts  |
|
|
|
To even make it more simple, if Satoshi should show up his identity that does not change any fact about bitcoin here, if we the users on the bitcoin forum understand the need for privacy and have it secured and the forum itself been built under serving you with privacy without requiring for any verification or kyc during the point of registration, I see no reason why Satoshi should reveal his privacyz for what? that we should all believe what we already have no doubt about or to help bitcoin global adoption, i still can't figure a genuine reason why his privacy should be revealed and don't think it will be ever done at later future.
Satoshi is probably dead, so people should carry on with other important things in life. It was a good thing the creator of Bitcoin decided to become an anonymous person, or it would've been targeted by mainstream governments already. He did it to help protect the project's decentralization and censorship-resistance. According to the whitepaper, Bitcoin was truly meant to be "Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash". That means no middlemen or third parties whatsoever. Unfortunately, regulators ruined everything by requiring exchanges to comply with KYC/AML laws. This takes crypto one step back by introducing the middleman. It would be no different than the traditional banking system crypto/Blockchain tech was meant to avoid in the first place. There's nothing we can do now since Bitcoin has gone into the mainstream. While it's still possible to trade and use Bitcoin without KYC/AML, you won't get the same liquidity/convenience as you would through centralized exchanges or other centralized service providers. At least, we know Bitcoin won't be going anywhere because of the way it was designed. As long as the community keeps it decentralized/censorship-resistant, there should be nothing to worry about. Just my opinion  |
|
|
|
El Salvador faced hard criticism as it postponed the launch of bitcoin bonds. But, they've been working on it amidst the market trend. Finally this have come for the public usage. The president believes in the future progress and as a result this have been launched at the present market situation. They're quite confident in the progress as well as have things planned in the right way. For all who stated the adoption as failure, will now realise the reality.
El Salvador was well ahead of its time. It adopted Bitcoin as legal tender before anyone else. That makes it the pioneer in Bitcoin adoption. The country may not have the necessary infrastructure to spur adoption of Bitcoin within the region, but at least it's on a good path. El Salvador's President was pretty smart by encouraging the use of Bitcoin by individuals and businesses alike. The region could become a tourist attraction, adding more fuel to the local economy. I believe Bitcoin needs to go bullish so people would become more interested in it. Decaying prices will only scare away the general public from the cryptocurrency. It's only been a year since El Salvador made the move, so let's give it some time to see what happens. Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
Especially with the way inflation is making fiat to lose value daily, people are getting tired of such way of leaving. Fiat has really lost value so much that you spend more just buy few items.
Btc on the other hand has sustainable value both in terms of fiat and as just bitcoin. Meaning 1BTC will remain so no matter what.
Like I have already mentioned severally, the price alone is not what makes btc a better choice, it is everything encompassing it that's it better.
Fiat currencies have lost a large portion of their value due to rising inflation rates. The COVID-19 pandemic, constant government spending, and the Russia-Ukraine crisis have affected the global economy at a large scale. Bitcoin may've lost its value in Fiat terms, but its supply has remained unchanged. It's still a scarce and valuable asset which has retained its purchasing power over time. Compared to other alternatives, Bitcoin is the best performing asset in the world. I think more people will embrace Bitcoin as Fiat falls to a point where there's no room for recovery. El Salvador became the first country to adopt Bitcoin as legal tender, so it should only be a matter of time before other countries do the same. Who knows if Bitcoin ends up beating Fiat for good? Just my opinion |
|
|
|
everything will get better if the bulls come again and the altcoin season starts,
because I believe that 80% of the holders in cryptocurrencies are altcoin holders and altcoins are currently really very bad,
judging from the chart altcoins have gone down to -90% so I I really hope that altcoins can recover in 2023.
People can't expect crypto market prices to rise if the global economy is in peril. Unless we get out of the recession, market prices won't be going anywhere. As we all know, Bitcoin needs to rise first for altcoins to follow. Only a bullish BTC will trigger an uptick in major cryptocurrency prices. I'd say this is the perfect time to buy more coins before everything goes back up again. You can become rich in the future if you invest when everything is going south. Remember, panic is your enemy. If you panic, you'll end up selling at a loss. It's best to take it slow and easy until the dust settles to see your investment grow tenfold. Who knows if we'll see the light at the end of the tunnel soon? Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
Payment processed.
Received. Thanks again!  |
|
|
|
Teach them the approach to being creative, so that they unleash their creative potential as well. But if you direct them to make money from a young age is not necessarily a good thing, it's a double-edged sword.
Most of today, children do not know how to make money but they also understand the value of money, only when they have money can they buy candy, toys...If you direct them to make money too soon, they will start to be greedy, always chasing money by playing games or they will find similar ways to earn money, neglecting their studies, not focusing on their studies. That is why educational programs are specifically divided according to each student's learning stage to suit each age.
Of course. If we only teach kids to make money, they'd turn greedy by the time they reach adulthood. During a kid's childhood, it's important to educate them about other aspects of life to become a self-sufficient person. I think kids will quickly adopt Bitcoin over traditional Fiat currencies because it has no age restrictions. Some would say that paper money can also be used regardless of age, but the thing is physical money will eventually be replaced by government-issued digital currencies. When that happens, you won't be able to use Fiat as cash without the need to provide personally-identifiable information. That's where Bitcoin comes in. With Play-to-Earn games, decentralized borrowing/lending protocols, and even decentralized exchanges, kids can participate in the global economy without the need to have a bank account. The more we teach our kids about Bitcoin, the better. Who knows if future generations ditch banks altogether in favor of Bitcoin? Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
This is why the ongoing referendum in four of the Ukrainian regions are important. By second week of October, Putin will declare that these four regions are part of Russia. That will enable him to send conscripts to these regions. Also, it will give an excuse to use nuclear weapons, since he can claim that Russian regions are under attack from NATO. I don't have much hope now. With every passing day, it looks as if we are further sliding towards WW3. If there is actually a WW3, then it will take decades for the global economy to recover.
Putin keeps pushing on the war, even though his country has already been severely affected with the sanctions. I guess he has some imperialistic agenda to rule the world. Don't think for a second that he's going to stop after he conquers Ukraine. It's possible Putin will target Finland, Sweden, Georgia, and other countries within the eurozone to expand Russian influence around the world. Western countries should not take Putin's words lightly when he said he was not "bluffing" about using nuclear weapons on Ukraine. After all, he's known to be unpredictable at times. A nuclear conflict will further deteriorate the global economy to a point where there's no room for recovery. Either the EU and the US step up to the game or the world would be nothing but doomed. Let's see how everything will turn out to be during the remainder of 2022. Just my opinion |
|
|
|
Currently more and more coins are using PoS. PoW is already becoming a very unpopular and persecuted consensus. Various governments oppose PoW, make various dubious arguments in favor of PoS, even trying to transfer bitcoin to PoS. This trend has been rapidly gaining momentum since last year. If you take the crypto industry 8-10 years ago, there many popular cryptocurrencies were on PoW, and now on PoS. Cryptocurrencies have long been moving toward regulation and centralization.
It's all the governments' fault. They want to control Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies by enforcing KYC/AML across every single centralized exchange. When they can't control trades performed directly on the Blockchain, they quickly attack crypto by saying it's "harmful to the environment". But the thing is Bitcoin can be as clean as any ordinary PoS coin if miners use alternative/renewable energy sources. If the vast majority of miners begin using solar, wind, geothermal, or even hydroelectric energy, then PoW would be environmentally-friendly. This is nothing more than a plan for governments to push PoS in order to centralize the entire crypto/Blockchain space. Sadly, Ethereum fell for it by adopting the consensus algorithm. Other cryptocurrencies like Cardano, BNB, and even Polygon (MATIC) are PoS, so it should only be a matter of time before Bitcoin remains as the sole PoW cryptocurrency in the world. Even Zcash hinted the possibility of switching to PoS for "self-sustainability". I'm pretty sure whales will fill their pockets with a lot of money, leaving the little guy out of the system. What matters is that Bitcoin remains a PoW cryptocurrency to resist the evil forces of centralization. As long as it stays that way, no one will be able to stop it. Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
I think your assumption is correct because bitcoin is traded freely without anyone's control. Supply and demand makes its price very volatile, so it's hard to expect it to be a stable asset. Personally I don't expect this stability of bitcoin to be achieved, but I would probably agree if volatility could decrease as adoption increases in different countries.
I believe the bitcoin economy is still relatively small compared to other investment assets. Of course, this can still be used by deep-pocketed manipulators to manipulate prices in the market. So I really can't imagine when bitcoin will become a stable asset if the economy doesn't grow bigger than now.
A stable Bitcoin would mean the entire world would've accepted it as legal tender. This is very unlikely to happen during our lifetimes, since Fiat is still going strong (despite fears of an economic recession). For Bitcoin to become the standard unit of account, banks need to die for good. Besides, why would you want a stable Bitcoin if we already have stablecoins and Fiat? Without price volatility, you'd be missing a chance to profit big time by "hodling" your BTC long term. It would be no different than Gold, where you have little to no chance for profit because of its relative stability. Despite the fact that the crypto market is a lot bigger than it was before, liquidity is relatively small compared to the traditional stock market. Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are just starting to blossom, so I'd say we should give them more time to mature to see what happens. Just my opinion |
|
|
|
But similar to tx from Tornado Cash, gov could force exchanges to orphan new ETH blocks that contain 0xMonero transactions. Since the grand majority of ETH mining nodes are on CEX it is not that far fetched.  They banned a smart contract ! Newly mined blocks could be just around the corner On the other hand Monero will live forever ! It's market value will suffer but the gov understood it cannot be stopped ! The US government didn't "ban" the Tornado.Cash smart contract because that would be practically impossible to achieve (the ETH blockchain is decentralized, after all). What they did was sanction the mixer, causing centralized service providers to shut down its GitHub repository and frontend interface. Without the source code and a web GUI where you could easily access Tornado.Cash, adoption would be virtually non-existent. Only geeks and crypto veterans would still be able to use the mixer by interacting with smart contracts directly. What the US government did is a precedent of what's coming in the future. I'm afraid the US and other countries will exert more pressure against mixers and privacy coins, as they move an inch closer to launching their own Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs). After all, governments wouldn't want people using decentralized tech that would minimize their authority/sovereignty. It's possible privacy coins will stop being traded at centralized exchanges, while mixers will be outlawed for good. You'd still be able to use such services because of their decentralized and censorship-resistant design. But it wouldn't be worth the risk as you could face jail time or be required to pay a fine. It's a dark future ahead for crypto/Blockchain tech, so we should be prepared for the worst. Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
The bitcoin usage is more important than the price. However, everybody is focused on the price because bitcoin is the greatest performing asset of all time
Exactly. It has always been about the price. People invest into Bitcoin with the hopes of turning a profit in the least time possible. The moment prices start going down like crazy, it's the moment people start panicking like there's no tomorrow. Only a small number of people care about Bitcoin's usability. That's usually geeks, libertarians, and cypherpunks. They will use Bitcoin regardless of how much it's worth in Fiat terms simply because it represents freedom. 1 Bitcoin = 1 Bitcoin, right? I'd wish people would stop focusing on Bitcoin's price, so that the cryptocurrency could achieve its full potential. It's a distant dream that's unlikely to become a reality because greed goes above all else. At least we know Bitcoin won't be going anywhere. As long as it stays true to its decentralized roots, there should be nothing to worry about. Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
Honestly, isn't the dollar mostly digital as it is right now? Most people I know, me included use debit or credit cards in place of cash. Literally using 'digital dollars'
I see what you mean though. Could the government make up their own digital currency and 'force' people to use that while trying to push bitcoin out because of the energy usage? That's actually an interesting concept. They push out BTC because of the amount of energy we're consuming while some states like Texas ran out of energy last winter. I really don't know what they'd do honestly, but it does seem like they really want to limit the amount of energy being consumed, like ETH has done.
Either way I think BTC is here to stay.
Yes. But even though the US Dollar is digital through the use of credit/debit cards, it doesn't live on a Blockchain or Distributed Ledger that's controlled by the government and the Federal Reserve. The transformation will be completed when paper money is phased out for good and the FED launches a CBDC which resembles Bitcoin in every way (except that it won't be decentralized). While a digitized version of the US Dollar won't be a direct threat to Bitcoin, it will certainly give more power to the government over people's finances. A CBDC would be the perfect tool for a full-fledged surveillance state. It'll be the end of privacy as we know it. Most people don't care about privacy anyways, so they will quickly adopt the Digital Dollar even if that would lead them to a "certain path of death". Just my opinion |
|
|
|
It is important to lean and understand the platform first before you engage and start investing your money, both services have their own risk and advantages, with knowledge upon, you can pick which one is best suited for your money, investing wisely with a potential passive profits can be executed when you already know what and how to sort and pick the best venue for investment.
Keep in mind that the actual concept of investment is to ear and to continue to grow with your financial capabilities.
Not all investors and traders are doing their research they are just following other successful investors, then failed.
Most investors only pour money into PoS coins hoping they'll become rich in an instant. But that's not the way it works. Most PoS coins with high stake rates, become worthless over time due to high selling pressure. In other words, the higher the rewards, the higher the inflation rate will be. Coins with lower stake rates are proven to retain their value over time. But there's always the risk of loss because of the volatile nature of the crypto market. You should only stake if you have money you can afford to lose. Otherwise, you'll risk yourself of losing everything in an instant. I think you're better off cashing out your crypto to Fiat or a stablecoin of your choice just to be safe. Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
When you think about miners for example, they were mining with a CPU in 2009, and getting 50 BTC per hit.
Now, you usually get shares, not a full block, but the thing is that the amount in fiat terms is similar to what a miner was getting in 2009. Actually early bitcoins were basically worthless in 2009 because you couldn't trade them for anything.
So, if you mine today, and wait a decade, that small amount could be worth a lot in 2032.
That means that there are continuous parties in the future, you just need to wait.
Also now there are also other alternatives to use Bitcoin with, like lightning, which is revolutionary and wasn't available in the early days.
More new things will exist in the future, making new parties.
It's never late to join the "Bitcoin party". The cryptocurrency constantly evolves, so it's hard to catch up with the latest developments on the industry. Those who get in now will be considered early adopters in the future. I'd say Bitcoin still hasn't reached the mainstream, even though its more popular than it was in its early days. Many experts have predicted a Bitcoin price of $1m in the future. Besides, there are a lot of countries that are yet to approve Bitcoin as legal tender (or use it officially as an alternative to Fiat). It's hoped that El Salvador's move will encourage other countries to do the same. Once the world embraces Bitcoin as an alternative to Fiat, then "hyperbitcoinization" will be realized. Early adopters like us will surely become filthy rich if that happens. Bitcoin is just starting to blossom so I'd suggest anyone to buy it at a cheap price before it's too late. Just my opinion |
|
|
|
The truth is that a great deal of those platforms which promote themselves as decentralized are not really decentralized at all, and we see this paradox everywhere in this market, for example if you take a look at the top 10 coins in this market which is supposed to be decentralized, what do you see? A bunch of centralized coins, probably the only one which is decentralized is dogecoin, but as we know dogecoin has its own fair share of issues as well.
That's certainly true, mate. A lot of coins are not as decentralized as they claim to be. The same can be said about "decentralized" lending/borrowing platforms and some "decentralized" exchanges. Considering that most projects are centralized, it's easy enough for governments to enforce the rule of law. You can see how easy it was to take down Tornado.Cash's frontend interface and GitHub repository. If developers would've hosted the interface and source code on a decentralized alternative (no centralized servers), things would've been different. I'm afraid most "De-Fi" platforms will comply with KYC/AML rules in order to prevent losing their business. It's all about money these days, so we should expect the unexpected. At least, decentralization isn't going anywhere. The number of projects that are truly decentralized is small, but that doesn't matter as long as people have an "escape route" from governments and third-parties. As long as decentralization wins, we should have nothing to worry about. Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
Chose both for now. Ethereum did the merge and it worked but we haven't seen any significant changes to ethereum like nothing happened after the merge. BNB is still the same as the previous alternative to ethereum which has quite a lot of interest, unfortunately the tokens issued on this network are of low quality but not with BNB.
BNB is still a better choice than ETH because of the low gas fees and fast TX confirmation times. The only thing is that BNB is heavily controlled by Binance, leaving little to no room for decentralization. ETH has turned into a centralized coin with the switch to PoS, but it's not as bad as BNB is. Which Blockchain network to choose would greatly depend on your daily needs. I'd say not to put all of your eggs in one basket due to the volatile nature of crypto. As long as you diversify your investment between various coins, you'll be able to minimize risks of loss as much as possible. Ultimately, the market will decide which coins will stay and which ones will go all the way down the drain. Who knows how long BNB or ETH will last? Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
Recent U.S. sanctions against cryptocurrency mixer Tornado Cash have sparked a debate within the crypto community on whether the ban compromises users’ ability to operate anonymously. Earlier this week, the Treasury Department imposed sanctions against Tornado Cash for helping hackers launder over $7 billion worth of virtual currency. The agency said the mixer service allowed cyber criminal groups, including North Korean-backed hackers, to use its platform to launder the proceeds of cyber crimes. Does that mean that all the privacy coins will be banned and regulated? Even those having own no KYC decentralized exchanges, like Crypton? First of all, Tornado.Cash is NOT a privacy coin but rather a mixer protocol built within the ETH blockchain. Second, the sanctions were only effective against the mixer's frontend interface (because it was hosted on a centralized server) and the GitHub repository itself. But they didn't have any effect on the smart contracts powering the mixer itself because of their decentralized and censorship-resistant design. We've seen how the US has been taking a strict stance against crypto/Blockchain tech, especially when it claims that most people use it for "illegal" activities (money laundering, tax evasion, etc). I wouldn't be surprised if the government takes further actions against mixers and even privacy coins themselves in order to help "legitimize" the industry as much as possible. Some countries might copy the US whenever they seem fit to do so. Others will simply turn their backs completely against crypto (like China and Russia) in order to stay in power. What matters is that the whole space remains decentralized and censorship-resistant so that it can counteract governments' efforts against it. Centralization risks will only make it easier for governments to shut down the whole thing. While I do believe privacy coins and mixers will face further scrutiny in the long run, they won't disappear because of the way they're designed. Most (if not all) projects are open-sourced these days, so there's nothing stopping anyone from making forks in order to help protect our privacy. Considering that crypto has reached this far, I'd say it's too late for governments to do anything about it. Just my opinion |
|
|
|
If Bitcoin got stable there will be no huge inflection. This will stable almost all coins. And there will be no huge up and down. All the top coins will not depend on Bitcoin.
Whenever Bitcoin got stabled, All the market will be stable in a result of that.
Question is that how Bitcoin can be stable? If it got stabled that will happen?
Never. Bitcoin will always be a volatile cryptocurrency simply because it's traded on the open market. You can't expect something to remain stable, especially when people measure its value relative to traditional Fiat currencies. The pioneer cryptocurrency (BTC) has a finite supply of only 21m coins, so technically its value should go up over time. It's normal to expect a downslide in market prices for a short period of time, due to the speculative nature of crypto. I'd say Bitcoin is perfect just the way it is. If you really want stability, then just cash out your Bitcoin to Fiat (USD, EUR, etc) or simply convert it to a stablecoin of your choice. I'd be a dream come true if people began paying for goods and services in Bitcoin without measuring its value in Fiat terms. 1 Bitcoin will always be equal to 1 Bitcoin, right? The odds of this happening are very slim, so my guess is that Bitcoin will remain a volatile cryptocurrency during our lifetimes. Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
The only thing I see about ethereum is that it enjoys being the first alternative to Bitcoin and being the first to house a lots of external projects on its blockchain.
Another about the reason for ethereum being performing in price more than other alternatives which are obviously (to the pros) better in term of development is because most of the new crypto investor do not know about the technology and technical aspects of what they invest into. So, they rather go for the big name in the Cryptocurrency world which ethereum conveniently belongs to.
Exactly. The only thing keeping ETH as the biggest crypto after Bitcoin is the first-mover advantage. If it wasn't by that, ETH would've been "eaten" by its competitors already. I guess it's not about what new features a coin has, but rather how secure and reliable a coin is. Compared to other smart contract platforms, ETH is the most widely-developed and trusted cryptocurrency on the planet after Bitcoin. I guess that's more than enough for ETH to retain its place as the "King of altcoins" for a long time. While I don't like the ever-rising gas fees of the ETH blockchain, no other competitor outmatches its level of decentralization and censorship-resistance (although it can be debated with the recent switch to PoS). People will ultimately decide which coin stays at the top, and which coin goes all the way down the drain. At least, the competition is healthy. As long as there are a wide variety of options to choose from, nothing else matters. Just my opinion |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
