This has been the problem since then, no one can stop inflation and we should deal with this. The government should already understand that every year, the price continues to rise and could result to a higher inflation especially if they didn’t do something to slower it. That’s why its advisable to invest our money to beat inflation, we should not save it on a bank, better to let your money work for you.
Disagree with you, because government can stop inflation not to occur or spread in the land by demanding for more money from the central bank and creating a good environment for crypto users in the country. It is the responsibility of the government to fight inflation immediately before it will reduce the citizens and country economy to zero level in the country. That doesn't make sense. "Demanding more money" from the Central Bank/Federal Reserve literally suggests more money printing and the expansion of the money supply. It's literally QE. The Federal Reserve can only stop inflation by raising interest rates, reduction of the balance sheet through Quantitative Tightening, which will also crash the economy. But will the cabal crash the economy? I believe they won't. Especially not with the narrative changes they expect everyone to believe every four months.   HODL Bitcoin, prepare for hyperinflation. |
|
|
|
A group of people are going to campaign for a change in how Bitcoin works.
They will buy ads in mainstream media publications to spread some FUD about Bitcoin's proof of work.
A campaign? What kind of campaign? Obviously those people don't know how Bitcoin works. Make a BIP, and post it in the developer's mailing list, then see how the far proposal goes. Chris Larsen, who founded his own altcoin 2012, is going to be one of the people funding this campaign: Larsen said Bitcoin’s power consumption issue could be fixed via a soft or a hard fork -- both changing the network’s code to make Bitcoin less power hungry. A soft fork would preserve Bitcoin as a single blockchain. A hard fork would split Bitcoin into two separate networks, one supporting miners and the other running different code -- perhaps Proof of Stake.
The campaign believes that about 50 key miners, crypto exchanges and core developers have the power to change Bitcoin’s code.  The Ripple CEO? He's a mere shitcoin swindler, not a coder. Plus "50 key miners, crypto exchanges and core developers have the power to change Bitcoin’s code"? They forgot about BIP-148. |
|
|
|
Once people figure out who the rats are, watch them buy all the rat poison left in the market. The shitcoiners are currently bringing it with everything they have to front-run everyone, the rats shouldn't wait very long or they buy at ATH. Plebs, just HODL. Don't sell your cheap precious Bitcoins to the billionaires, and the shitcoiners. |
|
|
|
That's laughable. Using that kind of debate, they're obviously nitpicking.
The "energy-wasting" argument just lacks so many things, and it's used as the first offense against PoW, especially on the "go green" side of things, what the majority of people fail to realize is that PoW can actually help reduce carbon emissions to a great degree, for over a century nobody has ever found a better way to deal with uncombusted natural gas (methane) which is 80 times more harmful to the environment than carbon dioxide, gas flaring has been the only option ever since and it's also pretty bad for the environment. The vast majority of oil extraction sites are located in places where no electricity is actually needed so that gas has to be vented into the air or otherwise flared, the only thing that lets you effectively and efficiently utilize that "otherwise wasted gas" is PoW, all you have to do is bring your mining gears near the extraction sites, and you can achieve a few things. 1-Reduce air pollution 2-Offer more jobs 3-Extract more value 4-Make the blockchain more secured 5-Make life more difficult for other miners who rely on resources with a high carbon footprint like coal And this isn't just a "theory", people are already doing that, what ExxonMobil is doing in North Dakota is a great example of how PoW can be good for the environment. I would ignore their nitpick, and avoid debating about the "climate" altogether. They would only troll you the moment they know that they're opinions are simply wrong. BUT they should understand that it's not about "the climate". Because if it truly was, why haven't government entites given large subsidies for renewable energy producers? They can let the miners make renewable energy producers more profitable by letting the them buy excess production. Why attack Bitcoin? Because "bad"for them. I believe if we ask any serious developer which technically gives superior security assurances between Proof of Work and Proof of Stake, the answer would always be Proof of Work.
It depends on who you ask. For example Vitalik is also a serious developer but he is serious about making more money so he will tell you PoS as he has been brainwashing people to convince them the upcoming fork of his shitcoin is a good one and not at all helping him profit from 72 million premined ether  OG Bitcoin developers don't take him as a "serious developer". They won't say it, but I believe they take him as a scammer. |
|
|
|
Strange their is an increase in blackouts in places where BTC PoW miners reside.
Can you name a few places? That's laughable. Using that kind of debate, they're obviously nitpicking. Plus they're merely using different forms of arguments/straw men, and see what sticks. I believe if we ask any serious developer which technically gives superior security assurances between Proof of Work and Proof of Stake, the answer would always be Proof of Work. |
|
|
|
What is interesting, however, is that despite people supporting Bitcoin they are also supporting centralized exchanges and custodial wallets and all things that are essentially against the Bitcoin standard. So perhaps we could ask whether the people really prefer complete independence. For many years, DExes are left behind by CExes in terms of volume. Moreover, despite compulsory KYC hassles and failing a number of times in the process, centralized exchanges are not losing popularity. Is it only because DExes don't support fiat? Or is it simply because CExes are generally better? Or perhaps people aren't really interested get out of fiat altogether?
It's for several reasons: - At the beginning how/where would you buy bitcoin? On the street? From some stranger? - The exchanges offer a certain level of security because they kind of explain you how to activate the 2FA etc - Are we sure that someone who try to buy/use cryptos for the first time has the knowledge to manage DeFi exchanges and wallets? I don't think CEXs are the devil, they're a good tool and I like to use them in combination with DeFi. They're not, they are a necessity. They're merely facilitators for buyers and sellers to meet, and provide liquidity for the market. But from another viewpoint, exchanges can become very powerful, that can control this new "financial system" too, like banks control legacy systems. A balance is needed, enter decentralized exchanges like BISQ. |
|
|
|
The scarcity of oil and gas is artificially created by the political situation in Europe. There's no actual shortage of oil and gas.It's just the political situation in Europe,that is creating uncertainty on the gas markets.The European countries are dependent on Russian gas for their electricity production(many power plants in Germany are using natural gas).When the gas prices went up,the electricity prices also went up,so the goods produced with expensive electricity also became more expensive.
American gas is more expensive than Russian gas and the USA cannot export enough quantity to Europe,in order to fully replace the Russian gas.
This inflation would have existed even without the energy prices going up.The money printing machines of the Federal Reserve and the European central bank created the conditions for high inflation levels years ago.
But there is actual shortage because of the actual sanctions that caused the supply constraints. The solution is simple, lift sanctions against Russia, but against the West's ethos. The other solution is more expensive, drill oil/shale themselves, and might also against their current ethos. The last solution, green energy, is the most expensive and very impractical. Plus all solutions will each be a "driving force" for inflation. |
|
|
|
What exactly Antivirus you are using? It seems few nodes or peers are being blocked by your antivirus I suggest you if you want to run and sync the Bitcoin core better exclude Bitcoin from scanning or disable your Antivirus or switch to another antivirus because your AV is giving false-positive reports. I'm using Kaspersky but it doesn't give any false reports. There's defintely more than a 75% chance that it's a false positive. I experienced the same thing before when I installed a POW miner in one of my computers, years ago. Tin-foil hats on, but I believe anti-virus software are being used by a group of anti-Bitcoin technology companies and corporations for an anti-Bitcoin/anti-decentralization push. They want to censor you. OP, learn to use open source software, start with Linux. |
|
|
|
OP, did you the fertilizer market surge? I believe high food prices, and markets related to agricuture and food production will be the next driving force for inflation in many countries.How should be prepare for it from an investment standpoint? Invest in agri-stocks/food production companies.
I saw a post somewhere that some rich countries already did it, they have bought massive agri farms out of their profits from selling their own crude oil. It was a brilliant idea, now they cannot solely rely on their oil as it will drain sooner or later. So the alternative is needed, in order for them to survive they have bought lands across the country to grow foods that their own lands cannot. I am speaking about Saudi Arabia, look at their 3km disc like farms, it is an innovation and it was lit. I was planning from the start to buy farm lands, I wanna grow my own food too, releasing myself from the shackles of this society. The system wants us to follow it like robots, we die, somebody takes our position and I won't be waiting that to happen and do nothing. We need to think an alternative to break the chain, even if inflation hits us hard, knowing we have food in our backyard won't do us any damage. We might be needing the energy for transport, then if things gets harder, we'll just have to go back on using the old ways huh. That would be the most worth it purchase from anyone's Bitcoin investment in my opinion. A good farm land located beside a neighboring farm land with an owner who is like-minded as you. That would be the perfect location. I also believe that purchasing and owning guns to protect your land, family, and yourself as a requirment to be a sovereign individual. Land, Guns, and Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
New telegram post by the master in Bitcoin Beavers
Oчeнь жиpнaя бычья дивepгeнция нa нeдeльнoм. Пoxoжe идём нa 80к.
Very bold bullish divergence on the weekly. Looks like we're going to 80k.
Shower thought. Is the market current cycle the first time for Bitcoin not to go through a -90% bear cycle? Should I cancel my bids placed at the 200-weekly SMA, and buy the current DIPs? Is the Terra billionaire's move in the Bitcoin market a confirmation for plebs to buy before FOMO? |
|
|
|
|
OP, did you the fertilizer market surge? I believe high food prices, and markets related to agricuture and food production will be the next driving force for inflation in many countries.How should be prepare for it from an investment standpoint? Invest in agri-stocks/food production companies.
|
|
|
|
You are wrong because value of bitcoin doesn't stem from how easily you can trade it! But the real value of bitcoin stems from how decentralized and censorship resistant it is as a currency or a payment system. This principle does NOT change for bitcoin no matter how much restrictions are placed in some centralized third party service that works with bitcoin.
Real value != financial value. The same mistake when some people in the forum read "HODL Bitcoin as a hedge", and literally conclude "financial hedge". Because of Bitcoin's underlying nature, it's not just a "financial hedge", it's also a hedge against a group of non-elected people who are trusted by plebs to keep the monetary system in order. |
|
|
|
The point of Bitcoin is the country that sanctioned "country A" can't censor any entity that decides to send, receive, or settle payments through Bitcoin.
It is not about censoring at all, it is about what would happen next to the entities that broke the sanction, they too will be sanctioned. It's essentially the fear of punishment that outweighs the benefits of the trade that prevents some entities from having relations with country A! Otherwise if the benefits were more (like Germany and other European countries) or if they didn't even care about them (like China, Iran, ...) they would just ignore the sanctions.
There are limitations, but there are solutions. Plus "taint" doesn't exist in the blockchain. It doesn't make Bitcoin less censorship-resistant.
Again it is not about censoring but about finding out and then punishing those involved. OK, if you're debating about "the situation", not about the medium of payment, then it won't matter which medium of exchange is being used whether Gold, Yuan, or Russia's SWIFT-alternative. My standpoint was, "country A" can't be censored from making payments through Bitcoin by any entity, which I believe makes it a powerful alternative to solve the payment side of things.
Yuan is an alternative, Bitcoin is another alternative. Any entity is free to choose.
Interestingly enough Russia is now demanding that those Europeans receiving Russian gas have to pay with Ruble from now on  The reason is to help regain the value of the Ruble, which crashed > 20% against the Dollar. |
|
|
|
a country that wants to avoid sanctions in this way benefit from using Bitcoin.
Countries can not and do not use bitcoin to avoid sanctions. Debatable because any entity can use Bitcoin to settle the payment side of things.
It's a pretty simple matter, if country A is sanctioned by country B then country A can not use any means of payment including bitcoin to trade with country B or any country following B. And if country A and C don't give a shit about sanctions they will trade with each other with or without bitcoin.
The point of Bitcoin is the country that sanctioned "country A" can't censor any entity that decides to send, receive, or settle payments through Bitcoin.
Keep in mind that bitcoin has the most transparent ledger in the world. So for example if country D was worried a little about getting sanctioned because of trading with country A, it would never use bitcoin!
There are limitations, but there are solutions. Plus "taint" doesn't exist in the blockchain. It doesn't make Bitcoin less censorship-resistant.
Bitcoin is just another way to dump US dollar as reserve currency and for trades. Sanctions only give the incentive to do it faster.
As I said earlier, other means of payment are already being used (a LOT more than bitcoin will be). Even Saudis are talking about dumping US dollar and using Yuan for oil exports!
Yuan is an alternative, Bitcoin is another alternative. Any entity is free to choose. |
|
|
|
I think that there are those who are trying to appear as Elon Musk or Justin Sun, thus inject this coin with news and a little investment to gain confidence and then print a lot of money to buy more Bitcoin.
I can't understand the benefit of adding a stablecoin based on the concept of linkage, which means that they may be good at first, but soon we will find that they have printed more of the assets they have.
If they create a new model then we may approve them.
Laughable. The Honey Badger don't care, Bitcoin is a Trojan Horse, absorbing financial systems old and new. Plus who are we to tell someone with billions that we disapprove of him of buying and HODLing an open, permissionless cryptocurrency? Will that stop him? We are mere plebs. |
|
|
|
I have been reading theblockcrypto.com article and there is one thing I don't understand. It says on the one hand that they are buying it on the one hand because they are going to tokenize Bitcoin into Luna, their native token and on the other hand they are going to serve as a reserve for their UST stablecoin.
I think in part this is an acknowledgement that their stablecoin and token are crap and that Bitcoin is better.
I suppose the reserve is to cushion the depreciation suffered by fiat currencies and therefore stablecoins, but it is not clear to me what role the volatility of the Bitocin can play in a currency that is supposed to be "stable".
It's a very smart investment in my opinion, and it's a very big complement that they chose Bitcoin. It proves that their shitcoins will need Bitcoin for their protocols to continue to exist, and survive the Darwinian process. I believe it will be the same with legacy banks, governments, and their central banks. They will be next because they might have no choice, they need a hedge. |
|
|
|
What is interesting, however, is that despite people supporting Bitcoin they are also supporting centralized exchanges and custodial wallets and all things that are essentially against the Bitcoin standard. So perhaps we could ask whether the people really prefer complete independence. For many years, DExes are left behind by CExes in terms of volume. Moreover, despite compulsory KYC hassles and failing a number of times in the process, centralized exchanges are not losing popularity. Is it only because DExes don't support fiat? Or is it simply because CExes are generally better? Or perhaps people aren't really interested get out of fiat altogether?
Because it isn't as necessary for the users to use just a DEX, like BISQ, but I believe if we lose more exchanges to the governments' demanding requirements, DEX trading will become the first choice for many users. Plus don't believe those trolls who spreads misinformation that DEX, or their developers are "random individuals" hiding away. Decentralized Exchanges are simply solutions to a problem. |
|
|
|
IF it ends up as a "underground-only" cryptocurrency, "according to" a cabal of entities who make the "rules", because a scantioned nation-state used it?
Most of the world population goes by those rules. They usually end up as laws. Wouldn't censorship-resistance be more valuable in a tyrannical world like that? Will it be "our" loss if it proves the technology works as designed? Plus a nation-state truly using it will not make Bitcoin "underground-only", it could start real adoption.
There are a lot of wonderful experiments that didn't get world wide acceptance/traction for whatever odd reasons. And I will not talk (only) about (some) altcoins, I would (also) talk about better ways to store data (much better than DVD), for example. The world goes on and most will not miss that, but for some.. it's a loss. But is Bitcoin just another "wonderful experiment"? It might be for you, but it's ground-breaking technology for me. A technology that the OG cypherpunks took years to solve, but they couldn't. The impact of the invention of Bitcoin will be comparable to the invention of the printing press.
You do have a good point about proving it works as designed, although imho that was already proven.
Can Russia trigger real adoption? I doubt it. Just look how the "adoption" went in China. They toyed Bitcoin for a while, then kicked it out and started their centralized coin. It has proven to us the Bitcoin resilience, but for the average Chen it's a loss.
And the western banking sector (and it friends) just waits the perfect opportunity/reason to ban their main competitor. And then.. who will adopt Bitcoin?
We might have different definitions of "real adoption". Are you saying the community should protest, and tell Russia not to use Bitcoin?
It's a free world (actually network), that's the beauty of it. And protesting won't help; I don't expect Russian government care at all. But please allow me still be concerned, OK? That's the point, there's no need to be concerned about the price, or the market as long as Bitcoin can maintain its ethos/social contact, and therefore its main value proposition. But what would be the point of Bitcoin? What would then be its main value-proposition?
I find Bitcoin now at a thin balance between the experimental status and worldwide adoption. I fear that the critical mass (user base) is not yet achieved and although we both have similar goal for Bitcoin, I'd prefer to "play safe" a little more. What we have now with Bitcoin is a mix of hope and speculation. Bitcoin's actual value will come after the critical mass is reached and we can go on with or without the current financial sector. What's your definition of "user base"? We might have different opinions. It will for me, it might for Putin and other sanctioned countries, and for the Heroine dealers in the dark markets.
I don't think that you really want that. It would be an immense setback. What I want? It's not what I want, or what you want. The Core developers made design decisions for Bitcoin to be permissionless, decentralized, and censorship-resistant that can also survive against an adversarial environment. |
|
|
|
Buy dip and hold seems like a very simple strategy, but it offers maximum benefits. Sometimes simple things succeed but people do the opposite and insist on complexity. Unfortunately, Bitcoin is already in the $43k region and it looks like it continues to surge after some exciting news regarding Russia's acceptance of GAS payments in bitcoin. The market will respond to the next level of that need.
I'm not sure it's a bullrun and much to look forward to in Bitcoin Miami April 6-8. No signs of verifying the next level yet but $48k looks great to end March for trend building
I believe there will be many investors/traders who definitely will find it debatable if it offers maximum benefits to your wallet, but I am very sure that simply Buy the DIP, and HODL will offer maximum benefits to your health, and sanity while increasing some benefits to your wallet. There will be less stress, we are just mere plebs. |
|
|
|
It will be their loss in my opinion, and Bitcoin will crawl into the systems that the legacy "legal entities" will not serve, and make those markets more efficient. The price might crash, but I'm confident it will surge again.
If Bitcoin ends up as underground-only currency, it will be everybody's loss. IF it ends up as a "underground-only" cryptocurrency, "according to" a cabal of entities who make the "rules", because a scantioned nation-state used it? Will it be "our" loss if it proves the technology works as designed? Plus a nation-state truly using it will not make Bitcoin "underground-only", it could start real adoption.
Sorry, I find your view in this a bit limited (or maybe I just don't understand it), and repeating that bitcoin is permissionless medium of exchange won't change that.
I respect your opinion. Are you saying the community should protest, and tell Russia not to use Bitcoin? But what would be the point of Bitcoin? What would then be its main value-proposition?
For example, an asset only in the underground markets - no matter the price recovers or not - won't really be seen as a store of value.
It will for me, it might for Putin and other sanctioned countries, and for the Heroine dealers in the dark markets. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
