You're right. This also helped to keep very low value altcoins on trade, where bitcoin 8 digits after decimal point wouldn't have suffice.

Also I've checked now how many trade pairs USDT has on Binance and I was surprised - they're more than BUSD or BNB, probably more than BTC too - then it struck me: binance.com has no USD and the replacement was (and is!) USDT.

So yes, we have now a much better answer to OP question.

Because while 1 pool operator can randomly become evil, the chance for more than one do that decreases by a huge degree?
Because maybe FUD was working better back then than now?
I don't know. But ask yourself: did that pool get evil and has done 51% attacks (and why not)?

That would be wishful thinking.

Maybe somebody has the numbers about how much USDT is transferred in and out of Binance on a daily basis, but I have a feeling the numbers may be bigger than for fiat. And then delisting USDT would be an awfully bad business.



The second one is USDC, not USDT 
But wasn't market cap an useless parameter to measure?

And they are so stupid and malicious they will team up to destroy bitcoin - which now brings them nice money - instead of stay clean and keep earning... right?
It's funny to read that you tell others they're wrong, when you are the one decoupled from reality.

While I could have been wording that better (only the ending part of the strategy was bad / missing), if you start with insulting people that will never prove your point.


If you make a strategy for winning when your car is that slow, unless you have Ayrton Senna at the wheel it means that you've smoked the wrong pot (and please don't come with bedtime stories about how good driver is Lewis).
Compared to the golden days they were pretty much expecting the unexpected and were one step in front of RBR, now they've adapted poorly. Leaving Hamilton with medium tyres when pretty much everybody had softs simply cannot end good. On soft tyres people get much faster (was it 1 second less per lap?) and they know all that. Indeed, the only good window for that may have been when the pack went through the paddock and maybe changing tyres for both pilots then would have been bad for Russell for short term, at least.
But if they would have been doing that, both cars could have been ending before Ferrari - which is the team they are battling now, not RBR.


With their winning mentality (lol to that), they've screwed it up. Just look at Hamilton swearing at near the end of the race.
They've lost valuable points. They're only lucky that Ferrari wants to win the title for the team that sabotages itself best over the history of F1.


OK, that does make sense for long term.. and would have if safety cars (virtual or not) wouldn't have been spoiling their plans. And in F1 they pretty much have to expect the unexpected and take advantage of everything they can. Well, they didn't. In the last laps they could have had a chance for holding positions only with softs, period.


While keeping the team together is a nice thought, while he is fighting for his team, this, instead of getting people more focused into doing their job perfectly, has the opposite effect: the team seems to be sloppier and sloppier with every week passing by. The strategy seems to be missing (I mean, not long ago they asked the pilot how he wants the strategy?!), the tyre changes go randomly bad, .. it's clearly easy to comment from outside, but something does look wrong there.

My address is also OK.

He is right: it's more hype than substance. But no, that direction is not a dead technology, there is some (small amount of) "substance" there after all.
Yes, they're far from making it consumer grade. Yes, since it's extremely prone to errors, and also it needs to stay at very low temperatures and protected from any kind of vibrations, it's almost like we want to build something meant to not work on Earth. But this only means that they have more work to do.
Also if the funding will (ever) get depleted, this idea will probably get halted, not buried. And maybe a fresh idea can change everything.

So, exactly like with "bitcoin is dead", I would not be so eager to announce the death of QC. I could be too easily get proven I'm wrong.

P14 (!)


Mercedes strategy was pretty bad. But while Russell was smart enough to get advantage of the pit lane situation, Hamilton wasn't.


I simply don't understand what is Ferrari doing. They are constantly sabotaging themselves. Completely unprofessional.


Yeah. I said I'll bet on him and I (sadly) didn't because was travelling again in the weekend. I've missed all the practice, qualifying and race too. I've just seen today a rerun of the race.
The race was interesting, especially the last 1/3 of it.

---

Does anybody know the backgrounds of the incident when Vettel ignored blue flags and didn't let Hamilton pass? Any official excuse, or was it meant as a "farewell salute"?

Most probably; especially as mining seems to be more suitable on sunny places people can put on their solar panels.


Omg LOL!


It may work by actually heating water and send that through pipes, but that means more costs and more waste too.
Or as said, use the heat in a garden where the tomatoes may not mind the noise (although I've read in the past that flower prefer classical music). But that may need to be insulated too if it's near the civilization.


Exactly.

The thing is that while we do have a high degree of freedom of speech allowed here, trolling is against the rules.
However, I did report him, for trolling, I'd guess that some others too, still, no action has been done by the mods.
I can guess that mods' situation is also not easy in this kind of cases (maybe it's hard to tell if it's an illness or trolling, but imho we have exactly the case DaveF has wonderfully described), so yeah, he have wait and see what's going to happen.

I have a feeling that these articles have forgotten about the noise a bitcoin miner makes.
I don't say that using the heat of the ASICs is bad (I think that some even use it for their garden/plants) as long as they mine anyway, I just say that the topic may need to be expanded/completed in order to make it actually useful.

"Other contact info" was (is?) sometimes used for linking accounts/bounty campaigns. We could learn from them and instead of insisting on the name of those fields (and yeah, the fact they may do something if clicked), just use them for our needs if it's the case. (Actually I think that some few users do that already.)


Since it's not replaced yet, I'd conclude that the new software is not considered yet safe enough to be used for this forum.


Indeed, irc was simple and effective. I think that for example Monero development meetings are still discussed on irc.
But irc needed to know what software to start and also what server to use and maybe that was one of the reasons it's not in this list (maybe those settings were either too many, either not standardized enough?)

Well done!


Actually this math is terribly wrong because there's a very good chance that more than half of the 21M is locked in wallets lost or to people or entities not willing to sell (the vast majority of those funds) for very long time.
Even more, one can safely count on the fact that some will buy more than 1BTC. Did you really stop at 1BTC? I kinda doubt it. And even owning 1.001BTC means the result is different.

On the other hand, who cares of those millionaires? Let them hold fiat; we hold Bitcoin.

Dificultatea se schimba cam la 2 saptamani. Asta inseamna ca daca creste hash rate, sunt intr-adevar sanse ca pentru o vreme blocurile sa fie generate mai rapid.
Deci ironia ta nu prea are baza.

Trying to scare some newbies, eh?
What you posted is no useful information: it's data available to whoever wants to read it and everybody can transfer his funds wherever he wants. And we should not care.
What you posted is FUD: the numbers can be seen as big and scary by the inexperienced, but it's actually just a fraction of the coins sold and bought on a daily basis. Even more, somebody with such amounts of coins is usually not so stupid to break the price and sell at a loss.

Still, we're in bear market, so the price can still go lower (or higher!). Traders have to stay alert, HODLers can buy more or just enjoy the ride.



You should take another look: https://mempool.space/tx/4e51e9c29620f676e49e4a3670be158fa626866c032b46a2a2ee254c861604c6
Even more, please don't quote such big images at full size. You can edit the img tag and change the height to make it smaller.

All this was discussed in the Ledger Nano S Plus topic. You could have been reading that first, really...


Afaik it's not discontinued yet, meaning that for a while (at least the EU legal 2 years) they should still offer support for it.


Yes, sooner or later it will most probably get discontinued and if vulnerabilities are found, then using the old device will become unsafe.
At that point it will be recommended to buy another HW (from Ledger or not).


Now? No. Not yet, by far.

This is not about bear markets, the tx fees are usually low when the price doesn't change much (no matter how high or low it is).
And I'd bet that a lot of people would prefer to pay much bigger tx fees as long as their coins also worth much more


I think that you've overpaid some 10-20x. Did you use a web wallet or something?!


There are many altcoiners whose main narrative is that bitcoin is expensive to use, just to divert people's eyes from the fact their supported coins are copycat shitcois or useless forks.


The tx fee is completely unrelated to how many coins you send. It's related to the size (in bytes) of the tx, which comes from number of inputs, number of outputs, the type of address you use (SegWit is cheaper) and obviously how much you're in hurry / how much you want to overpay for speed.

---

Don't take me wrong, I'm happy you've discovered that bitcoin is not expensive to use. I simply want to point out that you still have a lot to learn

Oh, but I don't deny that! My point on this matter was that price topics belong to Speculation.


Yet OP question was what you expect and you didn't answer to that

Most of the less complicated solutions related to banking are implemented by using their centralized nature to the max. In bitcoin world this may not be the best direction.

I won't deny it, some things could be done to make things easier for non-technical people. But I will be honest and I would not expect people invest time and work "for fame"; let's be honest, the most fool-proof solutions are commercial ones (i.e. ones for which the developers got paid).

From what I've read (eg. on Financial Times) MicroStrategy is also considered involved, for helping/covering Saylor's actions.
See: https://www.ft.com/content/b356290d-a9c2-4ed2-8852-7f2d0c080f1c