The transaction cost is very cheap and it was finished by several clicks.
The ability to send money in one click is both strength and weakness. This means that you could send millions of dollars by mistake and hackers could also steal them without any obstacles. With banks you would be contacted by them if someone tried to move a large sum of your money. By the way, you can see how secured the Bitcoin network and its transactions are, if you compare it to altcoin networks & altcoin transactions. Cost of 51% attack: https://www.crypto51.app/6 confirmations on Bitcoin network have power of hundred of confirmations on altcoin networks: https://howmanyconfs.com/Unfortunately people don't realize how bad altcoin security is, because most of the crypto investors don't understand the technology and just invest in whatever is trending on twitter. |
|
|
|
|
Altcoins are copies of Bitcoin created by way smaller teams of developers and with people with less experience. They usually try to put some sort of twist in their coin to make it stand out, which often compromises the security of the network. These coins also can only get a tiny fraction of Bitcoin's security, and there are many documented successful 51% attacks against altcoins. And most importantly, many-many altcoins are created with the sole goal of dumping the premined coins and abandoning the projects sooner or later.
|
|
|
|
|
Stop. Setting Bitcoin ownership goals can only be harmful for the community, it will promote elitism with people who own more looking down on people who have less, and people who haven't reached the goal would only be stressed, and most importantly, it will push many people to invest more than they can afford to lose, which eventually turns ugly.
No one needs to own any Bitcoin, but if someone decided to buy it, they should buy only as much as they can afford to lose.
|
|
|
|
|
Like it or not, regulations can not be avoided, the government takes everything related to flows of money very seriously. It's already a miracle that Bitcoin lasted for so many years without targeted regulations.
Of course everyone understands that it's impossible to regulate cryptocurrency directly, as it is decentralized, but they don't need to do it, because they can regulate exchanges and services that use it, and it will be enough to cover most cases.
I think if centralized exchanges will be able to list only approved coins, it would do more harm than good, though it would certainly do a lot of harm too, but if people will have harder access to shitcoins, that's a big plus. Advanced users will always be able to buy any coin they want, while less experienced people will be protected from their own stupidity.
|
|
|
|
This chart looks really accurate, as the Twitter user said, it is a bitcoin cycle indicator. It shows the different phases of the cycle for Bitcoin since the beginning.
I don't think looking at the past can help a lot with prediction Bitcoin's future, there's very little data to look for patterns, and you should also keep in mind that conditions greatly changed - Bitcoin went from being traded by amateurs with a few millions of daily volume to being traded by pros and having many billions in volume. Also things like derivatives were non-existent in early days, but now they are clearly influencing short-term price, as you can see how the pumps/dumps are aligned with things like options expiration dates. |
|
|
|
|
There are already decentralized versions of twitter like Mastodon. How is Twitter planning to go decentralized without losing their power to ban people? Because you can't have both at the same time. And adding Bitcoin to twitter sounds very exciting for us Bitcoiners, but I'm sure most of the twitter users will not care and will not use these features.
|
|
|
|
|
Some people are way too careless with their crypto, they log in to their wallets on online machines, they click on links and popups without thinking twice, they send coin to people they have talked for the first time 20 minutes ago. Scams like this would never work against someone who made it a habit to verify everything when it comes to their crypto holdings. When you see a security alert, the first thing you should do is not rush to click on it and do as it says, but verify genuinity, and read about recommended step from official sources. This is just basic logic. Saying "I was tired" is not an excuse.
|
|
|
|
Hello, this point of view is a point that my friends and I often exchange. It may involve some knowledge of economics, which has not been discussed by more people. To fully understand this point of view, we must first establish a logic. That's the Bitcoin I'm talking about, not just Bitcoin itself. More importantly, there is the thought, culture, philosophy and spirit behind Bitcoin. In my opinion, this kind of thinking is the more important part. Thought guides our practice. In my opinion, the core idea of Bitcoin is "decentralized thinking". It hopes that we will build a more free, equal, transparent, and open society. So how did Bitcoin change the relationship of production? What it actually changes is the distribution relationship. In our current commercial civilization system, the company system is the most important production relationship. This relationship of production has existed for four to five hundred years. Shareholders invest in the establishment of the company, then hire management to manage the company, hire ordinary employees for labor and production, and finally sell products and services to consumers. The inter-distribution relationship is based on exploitation and opposition, not on the integration of interests. But in the Bitcoin distribution relationship, there is no centralized company to maintain this relationship. All rules are open and transparent. Anyone can participate in Bitcoin mining without permission, and participate in the buying and selling of Bitcoin, and ultimately benefit from it. This is a production relationship with common interests.
Bitcoin mining and network don't and can't create any goods or services. You can't use Bitcoin design to organize a production of hamburgers or taxi service to make it decentralized. You can't claim that Bitcoin changed something just because Bitcoin itself has a new model, because this model is not applicable to anything else. It was never Bitcoin's goal to do anything except creating a decentralized payment network. |
|
|
|
I was proud of my achievements, my confidence level shot through the roof. I made some comments I'm not proud of. I thought I was being sure of myself and didn't realise how arrogant I was.
What sort of comment was you not proud of? Was is some mistakes with technical knowledge? If so, that's absolutely normal to sometimes make such mistakes, I've seen even high-rank members sometimes do it. As long as it's not a habit, there's no big problem here. |
|
|
|
It's been a long time since I've bothered to look at Proof-of-Stake. Have there been any good solutions implemented or proposed for the "nothing at stake" problem while maintaining decentralization?
As I understood it, the "nothing at stake" issue was a theoretical attack which took advantage of the fact that users would no longer care about addresses that they were no longer using.
My understanding may have been flawed, and I may have forgotten some of the details, but from what I can recall the attacker might convince a user to provide the private key for such useless addresses. However, the address WILL have held some amount of coins in the past. If the attacker can gain control over enough such keys, they could effectively gain enough historical "stake" to take control of the chain starting at some historical point in time, and then invalidate the entire current chain?
I never heard about any "historical stake", that would be a very stupid system to implement. One of the definitions of "nothing at stake" problem is that once you have enough coins to attack the network, it doesn't cost you anything to sustain your attack, so if other users don't take any measures like creating a hard fork, you can just halt the network forever. With PoW you not only need to own equipment, you also need to continuously waste electrical power. I'm not knowledgeable about altcoins, but I think Ethereum plans to implement some system that would somehow punish those who try to attack the network with their stake in their upcoming update, and I don't know if this system is sound or not. |
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't celebrate the fact that more than a billion people won't have an opportunity to easily buy and sell Bitcoin and use it as a currency. Of course the exodus of miners from China is the only logical thing, but it shouldn't be viewed as some grand goal that we always wanted to achieve. Ideally, Bitcoin would be legal and not overly regulated everywhere and people would be free to mine so they can get the cheapest electricity possible. If more large countries will ban Bitcoin (which right now is not likely), that could introduce centralization, as miners will have less options for choosing their location.
|
|
|
|
|
All selections of altcoins are wrong, there's no good altcoins that will bring reliable profits. Go to coinmarketcap, pick as much altcoins as you want, look at their price and switch to displaying price in BTC - in pretty much every case the price goes down over time. If it didn't, it means it's still a very young shitcoin that will eventually, and likely sooner than later, go down. Altcoins exist for short-lived pump and dumps, and you can't outtrade manipulators who orchestrate them, so better just stay away, don't be greedy and enjoy the massive gains of Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
When learning Bitcoin and blockchain in the past few years, I usually heard a saying that Bitcoin changed human relations of production and it is a revolution over relations of production.
Can you show some examples of where you heard it? I hear such claims for the first time in my 5 year journey. What does Bitcoin have to do with production? In my opinion, Bitcoin has indeed changed human production relations, including organization structure, business models and the entire society. By the way, some of these changes are caused by Bitcoin, others by blockchain system developed on the basis of Bitcoin. This is my basic logic in learning Bitcoin.
How can Bitcoin change anything if it's owned by a tiny fraction of the population, and a tiny fraction of this tiny fraction uses it as a currency regularly. And Bitcoin is simply a payment system, how can it revolutionize things beyond its reach? |
|
|
|
That is a fallacy. It's like if you say I can't have $1M net worth because my annual income is $50K.
The GDP is the annual income, the wealth accumulated is another thing.
Total global wealth is $431 trillion.
It is, of course, possible that Bitcoin, which is currently succeeding as a store of value, will absorb much of that figure. That is the thesis of Saylor and others.
Okay, fair, let's use global wealth. Let's say it will reach 700 trillion, so Bitcoin representing 11% of it is still insanely high. Gold is one of the most popular stores of value, and it has a market capitalization if 11.54 trillion. How can Bitcoin reach a 7 times higher price than that if it's not even universally better than gold, as it relies on electricity and Internet that can theoretically be disrupted. And it still has regulatory risks looming above it. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin doesn't have "hours long confirmations", it has fee market and sometimes the fees get high, meaning that transactions with lower fees won't confirm until the fees drop down. I wouldn't argue that it hurts Bitcoin viability as a payment method for everyone, but it is possible to use it as such as of now.
But the plan is to officially release Lightning Network, as it is actually allows Bitcoin to be competitive with fiat payment methods in terms of speed and fees. So you don't have to view Bitcoin as only investment or only currency, because people can choose to use it however they like.
|
|
|
|
1. Is Lightening Network only out to solve BTC problems? If no, are all altcoins eligible to use it, if not now maybe in the future when the need arises. Or would there be or is there solution to altcoins limitations?
Altcoins are welcome to try to copy Lightning Network's design, if they have the features necessary for it, it could work. 2. Can the LN be used as a store of value? Which means that I can transfer some amount of btc there and leave it for a long time for saving purposes? If yes, any security risk?
The funds will stay on Lightning Network for as long as the channel will be open. But you can't control the node that you open your channel with, so you can't rely on your coins being on LN for years. When the channel closes, your funds will become available on mainnet. 3. Can a user add someones wallet address to the network without his knowledge? What I meant is that must the sender and receiver be authenticated before transaction?
Lightning network doesn't have addresses, it has payment requests that are generated for each new payment. 4. Since the blockchain only records transaction at opening and closing a channel, will it be nice to have a mechanism that mirrors the transaction in the LN to the blockchain for on blockchain record keeping and security even when they are not charged transactions fees?
Lightning network transactions are signed on-chain transactions that don't get broadcasted. The act of closing the channel is actually broadcasting the last state, so the security of LN transaction is very similar to onchain. The possibility of fraud comes from broadcasting a previous state, but there are mechanisms to combat that. 6. The increase in the adoption of LN will invariably reduce the reward of the miners, Will this not amount to further increase in the on blockchain transaction fees?
It's not guaranteed to reduce transaction fees on chain. People will still be doing onchain transactions. And miners don't control transaction fees in any way, they are decided by the fee market. 8. In the case of buying coffee. If I have to buy coffee from 5 different stores, do I need to open and close channel 5 different times? Isn't the cost of opening and closing these channels equal transaction fee on the blockchain?
All you need is an open channel that can find a route to all these stores. If the whole network will be fully connected without isolated "islands", you won't have to worry about it. |
|
|
|
|
Don't they have x125 or x150 leverage on their perpetual futures? Crazy things can happen with such leverage, if it's not some software bug, of course. There's no rule that says that the price of derivatives should match the spot market price, after all, what would be the point of having derivatives?
|
|
|
|
|
No. Smart contracts can't do everything in the world, in fact they can do very little. Ethereum and other smart-contract platforms aren't used in real world like it was envisioned, they are used for creating tokens and trading them, that's it. The DAO promised to revolutionize companies, and it just died at launch due to bug, and no one tried to relaunch it, because they understood that it was a stupid idea.
|
|
|
|
2. Dimon said that if any JPMorgan traders were trading the crypto-currency, “I would fire them in a second, for two reasons: It is against our rules and they are stupid, and both are dangerous.”
Sounds like a totally reasonable thing, daytrading crypto, escpecially shitcoins, is a good way to lose money, so if their workers were doing it, they have full right to fire them. I'm sure JPMorgan doesn't care what their traders do on their own private time. While I agree with the title, JPMorgan giving their users access to crypto funds doesn't necessarily mean that Jamie Dimon did a total 180 with his opinions concerning cryptocurrencies. It could simply just mean that JPMorgan's users want crypto funds, so they're giving them access just for them to earn money off the fees. Their main goal is to make money in the first place, not to push their agenda to their users.
That's exactly what Jamie Dimon said earlier this year, he's still not a fan of cryptocurrency, but if his clients want it, he doesn't mind giving them access and taking fees. But I have an impression that his stance somewhat softened, if he believed that all crypto is a scam/ponzi, he wouldn't let his clients deal with it, that would be unethical. |
|
|
|
Yeah, it actually seems to be a part of the plan. The full report mentions working on e-hryvnia. According to the roadmap, they will launch in May 2023. But fortunately, they intend to make it legal to use BTC, Ethereum and other cryptos along with it.
Ukraine’s President Signs Law Allowing Central Bank to Issue a CBDCIt makes sense for Ukraine to work on CBDC, because Ukraine has quite good developers and they already have a lot of expience in developing government-owned apps, so if this CBDC will be a success, they could even sell the software to other countries. But Ukraine also has very convenient online banking, so this new CBDC would have to face some serious competition. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
