|
Prediction 2: $37,232.50
bech32 address: bc1qwvnm4g4jfjg5nr0pzu9mxdyu865f24nc0dckhv
|
|
|
|
Das war so irre, weil sich da jedes Schlagwort noch verkaufen ließ. Ich habe auch zu der Zeit etliche Whitepaper gelesen und das war unglaublich schwer, da zu differenzieren und zu überlegen, ob vielleicht was dran sein könnte. Was aber in jedem Fall möglich war, war die abnormalen Gewinne mitzunehmen, wenn die Leute denn verkauft haben, bevor die Liquidität trocken war. Dass die Bitcoin-Dominanz in der Zeit dann so eingebrochen ist, wundert mich wirklich nicht. Das war krank damals!
Zu der Zeit war es nicht notwendig irgendwelche Whitepapers zu lesen, weil, wie du schon geschrieben hast, alles abging wie Schnmidts Katze. Investieren in Coin A,B und C. Zwei Wochen später wieder verkaufen und Gewinne mitnehmen. (An die Steuer denken!) Was schnelle Gewinne anbelangt würd ich sogar sagen das Whitepapers lesen damals eher hinderlich war  Ich hab damals auch sehr viele Whitepapers gelesen und wär mit weniger Skepsis wahrscheinlich profitabler gefahren. Auf der anderen Seite bin ich kein Fan von schnellen Trades und wär auf lange Sicht sowieso nur Bagholder geblieben. |
|
|
|
|
€35,709.06
Username: heretik2
|
|
|
|
|
Prediction 1: $35,362.20
bech32 address: bc1qwvnm4g4jfjg5nr0pzu9mxdyu865f24nc0dckhv
|
|
|
|
The US is one of the few countries to income-tax their citizens regardless of residency.
which is why if you're rich and american and don't particularly want to live in the usa, you might look into getting rid of that american citizenship. that's probably why so many rich people do that. for the tax benefits. and who wants to be accountable to the IRS when they're not even in the USA? Which is also why the US is one of few countries that charge an expatriation tax. The IRS definitely does not one let go off easy. I'm no US citizen myself, but the amount of red tape that is involved when doing business with an emigrated US citizen as a (non-US) bank or tax accountant is quite staggering, from what I've heard. |
|
|
|
If the IRS want all the data it mean all over the world customer are also in it and the IRS can know who has transacted more than 20K in the past year. What the heck is going on?
that would be a gross violation of people's privacy and I would condemn any company that would hand over peoples' information that didn't even have anything to do with the USA. What business does the IRS have to know what a citizen of some other country is using kraken for? So I'm highly doubtful that they are going to hand that type of info over. probably just on American citizens. On the other hand since Kraken is somehow classified as an american based company maybe the IRS thinks they have the right to examine all of their customers but lets hope not... The US is one of the few countries to income-tax their citizens regardless of residency. Accordingly I wouldn't be surprised if the IRS will receive data on every Kraken customer of interest, regardless of citizenship. You know, just in case there's still a US citizen hiding somewhere. If Jesse is American then even if they weren't a US based entity, I think they would be subject to the IRS just because of him. And if he flouted the law then I guess if he stepped on American soil they could arrest him at the airport type of thing. Knowing the IRS, given it's size, Kraken would probably be subject to them even if not an US entity. |
|
|
|
Reminds of that time when the NSA had problems recruiting new talent due to their strict policies regarding past and present recreational drug use. Though supposedly they have revised that ruling not that long ago. They should just invest on training someone to become crypto expert rather than hire from crypto community that despise them badly.
Imagine freshly trained crypto experts quitting their government jobs to FOMO into crypto  |
|
|
|
|
I don't quite see India on it's way to replacing China as the West's new manufacturing powerhouse yet. For now it seems more like a matter of companies hedging their bets, given the fragility of the supply chain that was unveiled by Covid and China's labour cost slowly catching up.
Still, India seems in a far better position then just a decade ago. Give it a few more years and we'll see who comes out on top.
|
|
|
|
Put differently, a breakthrough in mathematics that breaks ECDSA requires a lot more priors than a breakthrough in QC. Curiously, but: - how sure are we that this assertion is true? - would we still have the necessary resources given we find that breakthrough to accomplish this with classic computers? Obviously there's always unknown unknowns  But whereas with QC we are seeing gradual improvements, there doesn't even seem to be a way forward towards breaking ECDSA with classical computing, mathematically speaking. The "only" progress we've been seeing is the development of quantum-resistant cryptography schemes, so the consensus seems pretty clear that future threats are more likely to come from QC rather than as-of-yet unknown mathematical properties of ECDSA. |
|
|
|
You don't need a quantum computer to break it, you just need a mathematical formula which could work for any number, and since private keys are numbers, finding such formula can solve any key by using even a mobile phone.
Humanity developing a quantum computer strong enough to break ECDSA seems far more likely than someone finding an effective alternative to Shor's algorithm for classical computing tho. Now how did humanity invent computer? How did humanity invent quantum computer? I'm sure they were all humans working hard to obtain the necessary knowledge to invent such technologies. Whether it is more likely to have a strong QC or a simple math formula, that's debatable. Given the hardness of the problem there seems to be a paradigm shift in mathematics required rather than a "simple math formula" though. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that there is absolutely no way that somewhere out there is a solution to breaking ECDSA using consumer hardware, waiting to be discovered. I'm just saying that such an assertion is purely speculative since we have no reason to assume such a possibility given our current state of knowledge. Put differently, a breakthrough in mathematics that breaks ECDSA requires a lot more priors than a breakthrough in QC. Humanity developing a quantum computer strong enough to break ECDSA seems far more likely than someone finding an effective alternative to Shor's algorithm for classical computing tho.
It is exactly the opposite. Quantum computers are likely never going to do any useful cryptography related stuff. Maybe, but that does not necessarily make the opposite more likely. There's a third option after all: It may just not be possible. In the end we don't even know yet whether P=NP. |
|
|
|
You don't need a quantum computer to break it, you just need a mathematical formula which could work for any number, and since private keys are numbers, finding such formula can solve any key by using even a mobile phone.
Humanity developing a quantum computer strong enough to break ECDSA seems far more likely than someone finding an effective alternative to Shor's algorithm for classical computing tho. |
|
|
|
Anybody who trusts Ledger with their keys, and thus their coins, is an idiot.
An idiot.
An idiot that pays for the privilege of being an idiot. Are we allowed to call people who fall for this idiots?  Anybody who trusts Ledger with their keys, and thus their coins, is an idiot. Is this worse or better than people who trust exchanges or soon ETFs with their Bitcoins? To be fair the ETFs are targeted towards an audience that would not get exposure to Bitcoin otherwise, though I'm not quite sure who those people would be outside of institutional investors. But maybe there's still some folks out there that prefer paying a management fee over learning how to secure the coins themselves -- as we can see with Ledger, the pitfalls of keeping coins secure are plenty. |
|
|
|
I am not afraid of Ledger stealing the keys. Stealing will land them in prison, so that's not my biggest worry. But leaking the keys is a real risk. It will only land them in prison if it can be traced back to them. Otherwise it's indiscernible whether the keys leaked or an inside job happened. But yes, andy.arden is right that in the big picture government control is probably the largest risk. |
|
|
|
|
Trading is a great way to waste a lot of time only to be outperformed by the market.
Sure, with a lot of time and patience one might eventually become a profitable trader, but in my opinion the opportunity cost is not really worth it (i.e. the time spent on learning how to trade could also be spent on building a career that in many cases might be both more fullfilling and profitable, the latter allowing for a larger deployment of capital and thus more gains in the long run).
Unless of course becoming a trader is the career you want to build, but even then striving for a career in the finance sector first and then diving into trading might be the more effective path.
|
|
|
|
|
Prediction 2: $30,192.12
bech32 address: bc1qwvnm4g4jfjg5nr0pzu9mxdyu865f24nc0dckhv
|
|
|
|
I think about innovating, thinking ahead. No chip can be used to mine another currency, using the Chip which is sometimes even inefficient, but compared to machines with cards they earn from 0 to 100.
The difference between using a GPU and an ASIC to mine might be 0 to 100, but in the end if your profit due to the ASIC's energy consumption is 0... even x100 that's still 0. I saw a Russian who put an S19 chip on a pendrive and the thing worked. Maybe it worked, but it still doesn't mean that it was profitable. Does an ASIC designed for ETC or KAS or SHA256 only do this? At the hardware level, can it not do anything less than less efficient?
An ASIC can literally only run the algorithm they have been designed to do. The only way you can make it run more efficiently is by making it run slower or maybe by having it run at a lower voltage; though the latter would result in a slowdown as well due to increased error rates. |
|
|
|
As experienced investors are there measures that can be imbibed by new investors with little capital to help boast their capital. Some will want to mention patience which I will agree to but in situations where the money is needed to meet an emergency need how to you tackle such situations. Your formula might be a saving approach.
You tackle those situations by not investing money you can't afford to lose in the first place. Getting a stable income first (as pointed out by Mr.right85) and then using DCA, if you can afford it, is unfortunately the only way to get started in such a situation. |
|
|
|
|
Good. This would both help further legitimize cryptocurrencies as well as make sure that the banking sector stays transparent while continuing to integrate cryptocurrency-related offerings. Let's see what comes of it though, given that it's only a proposal for now.
|
|
|
|
Btw is that possible to give one node 10,000 different IP addresses? Btw in this case, won't you have to pay for each IP? Some people/organisations already have access to thousands of IP addresses. And with IPv6 which allow far higher total IP address, even individual could buy IPv6 in bulk. My quick search show there's website which offer 64K IPv6 only for 49 EUR/month. In a way that would still be better than the IPv4 situation though, where you have a handful of incumbents controlling large swaths of the address space. (ignoring that public IP address space is centrally allocated in the first place) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
