I do not think so but there are environmental movements being created against cryptocurrency mining.
As far as I remember, there was a similar post like this one and someone extensively replied, saying that the heat generated by cryptocurrency mining is relatively low to the point that it does not produce as a pollution perse compared to other pollutions present. Unfortunately, instead of addressing current and worse pollutions in the world, these movements are targeting cryptocurrency mining because of pure hatred.
Like what some countries have done, a miner can geographically and strategically setup their mining equipments in countries or places with a cool climate to reduce the outgoing heat. But I really doubt that countries would permanently ban cryptocurrency mining.
If Bitcoin mining brings huge taxation benefits, then it's unlikely governments will go against it due to "environmental concerns". Everything must be in the governments' own interest to avoid further obstacles/hurdles in the future. With alternative energy sources, it's likely Bitcoin mining will become greener over time. El Salvador is planning to establish a huge Bitcoin mining hub powered by Geothermal energy (volcanoes). Other countries can make use of solar and/or wind energy (even hydroelectric energy) to help contribute to the cause. I think the "harming the environment" situation is nothing more than FUD spread out by Bitcoin haters worldwide. Banks and some millionaires could be behind this, in order to minimize Bitcoin's presence in the mainstream world. It's a good thing the pioneer cryptocurrency is decentralized or it would've already been defeated by its enemies already. Who knows if Bitcoin remains the only PoW cryptocurrency in existence within the not-so-distant future? Just my thoughts  |
|
|
|
DeFi or decentralized finance can threaten the world of traditional banking, because of the shift in lending, even DeFi itself is known to be able to provide loans like other traditional banks.
This can affect existing traditional banks, because there will be competition between traditional banks and crypto in general, regardless of the various problems that will occur, crypto and traditional banks must be able to adapt to each other.
Crypto development is progressing so rapidly, this can be seen from the many users who join here, if Traditional Banks close themselves it is not impossible to be abandoned in the next few years.
Although currently crypto is still very risky, it is not impossible that in the future crypto can change finances, just need to wait for regulations or legal regulations, if this happens, it is certain that crypto will grow and be accepted by many people.
I don't see why not. Crypto is open source and decentralized, so anyone can do anything they want with it without restrictions (legally, of course). Banks can leverage crypto/Blockchain tech in order to increase efficiency and reduce costs as much as possible. Some banks already begun offering crypto services to their customers, allowing them to expand their business operations. In the end, everybody wins (banks, governments, individuals, etc) as crypto/Blockchain tech enables true financial freedom. With greater regulations, crypto will flourish like never before. The industry is growing at a fast pace, so it seems that crypto/Blockchain tech will be here to stay for a long, long time. Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
The difficulty bomb is designed to plummet mining profitability to disincentivize miners ahead of the long-awaited Merge. Ethereum network developers have decided to delay the difficulty bomb, a major step leading up to the highly anticipated Merge upgrade for the layer-1 blockchain. They set the delay to two months in order to “be sure that we sanity check all the numbers before selecting an exact delay and deployment time” according to core developer Tim Beiko in a June 11 tweet. ... The difficulty bomb will be a measure to disincentivize ETH mining operations from keeping their physical mining devices running as the network transitions from proof-of-work (PoW) to proof-of-stake (PoS). It dramatically increases the difficulty for miners to verify transactions on the network, thus reducing profitability for PoW miners. Eventually, it will become impossible for physical miners to validate a block. The difficulty bomb is a feature of the network added to the code in 2016 as plans for the Merge to become the Consensus Layer (formerly known as ETH 2.0) was being formed. (Source: Cointelegraph)I understand developers want to make the PoS upgrade as secure and reliable as possible. But constant delays will upset people as network fees (gas) rise like there's no tomorrow. We've already seen how negatively ETH's price was affected after developers announced the difficulty bomb delay. How much longer will people need to wait until ETH delivers as promised? The longer the PoS upgrade takes, the higher competing chains will rise to glory. I don't think adoption for ETH will continue to grow among the general public except for miners and whales who have money to throw at it without worry about gas fees. There are Layer-Two scaling solutions for ETH, but that hasn't brought the attention of investors and traders alike. The main chain is what it's all about. If ETH stays bloated, then it will slowly fade into oblivion until it becomes history. I hope ETH can get back on track to prove it's the best cryptocurrency in the world after Bitcoin. Just my opinion  |
|
|
|
The actual content of the NFT, such as a piece of art, is rarely stored on the blockchain. The reason why the content (such as a JPG, MP3, or Gif) of the smart contract associated with the actual NFT is stored on the web and not the blockchain is because of the size and cost. So you don't really own a piece of art. You own a piece of metadata describing some art that is stored on a centralized server. Those servers will, inevitably, eventually go down, be hacked or bought out so the owners of an NFT will, in the long run, own nothing but some metadata pointing to a defunct site.
The content was never meant to be stored on the Blockchain. If it did, most blockchain networks would be so bloated, the average person won't be able to use them for day-to-day payments. What's added to the blockchain is only the smart contract (in some NFTs) and its corresponding hash value to prove ownership. The ideal way to decentralize NFTs would be to store their content in a distributed file system (like IPFS or ETH's Swarm), but not many people aren't that tech-savvy enough to do this. I wouldn't say NFTs are a scam, especially when the trend is beginning to blossom. There are some NFTs that are being sold by legitimate companies (eg: Pringles, Nike). The future consists of full digitalization of our lives, so NFTs make the perfect replacement of physical items/collectibles. It'll be up to developers and the community as a whole to come up with real use cases in order to spur adoption of NFTs worldwide. The case of LUNA/UST was simply an irresponsible move from the project's team. You can't compare it with NFTs since it's apples vs oranges. What the future holds for the NFT industry is a mystery to all of us. As long as there are legitimate use cases for it, nothing else matters. Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
FED is recently pricing goods in Bitcoin.Though this news came out last week. A YouTube video published by a bitcoiner and crypto enthusiast -Anthony Pompliano and article I read online regarding this news. https://youtu.be/XyCdearSTbsThe St. Louis Federal Reserve published a post. "Which Shows that Bitcoin is a Unit of an account" for measuring things like price volatility. Cracking Bitcoin-Volatility CaseAccording to the post “Buying eggs with bitcoins – a look at currency-related price volatility,” the Eggs/BTC graph, The FRED graph, essentially compares egg prices in USD versus bitcoins. (i.e trying to show that Bitcoin price is volatile) But Misses the Big Picture: Which shows Bitcoin is a Unit of an account"Further, crypto Community Reacts:Deemester admitted that the Eggs/BTC graph was created to diss bitcoin’s volatility but also said that it did manage “to add another notch in the credibility belt of hard digital cash.” https://cryptopotato.com/fed-prices-eggs-in-bitcoin-but-misses-the-big-picture-crypto-community-reacts/Generally, in my own view this News could trigger a shift in the mindset of people to start thinking pricing things in value of Bitcoin rather than in dollar.
How would you feel if you have (BTC),goods and services other asset are no longer priced in US dollar (fiat) and eventually priced in BTC ?
Share your thoughts.
That has always been the dream. But unfortunately, it may never materialize because governments will continue to patronize Fiat no matter what. The US Dollar may be falling, but it won't disappear anytime soon. The same can be said about currencies from other countries. If the day where you can pay things with Bitcoin directly comes, then I'd imagine most of us will become filthy rich. A Bitcoin standard will surely fix the world. I've heard about El Salvador and the Central African Republic making Bitcoin legal tender, so this is a step forward for "hyperbitcoinization" to become a reality. Who knows if other countries join the game, as Fiat continues to lose ground in the mainstream economy? Crypto is widely unpredictable, so anything could happen in the future. Just my opinion |
|
|
|
We've been here before, you are just making the whales richer, selling your precious BTC for pennies (crappy fiat). The storm will pass, hodl, or try to accumulate even more BTC, it's a great time to buy for cheap. We will make it this time too. Even if BTC goes down to $15,000 nothing is forever. Remember $20,000 down to $3,000? Been through that storm too. Remember, 1 BTC = 1 BTC. To the Moon!
Exactly. Only a fool will sell Bitcoin when it's going down in terms of Fiat. The latter is going to collapse anyway, so it's best to hold on tight to your BTC until the dust settles. Those who've been a long time in crypto land, know this is only temporary as prices usually bounce to even higher levels than before. In a "hyperbitcoinized" world, you'd be paying for goods and services using Bitcoin directly without ever having to worry about its value relative to Fiat. Of course, this will only happen if most governments ditch Fiat in favor of Bitcoin. With El Salvador, the Central African Republic, and now Brazil favoring Bitcoin as legal tender, it should only be a matter of time before "hyperbitcoinization" becomes a reality. If you hold your BTC up to that point, then you will become filthy rich. Who knows what the future holds for BTC? Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
you might want to check on things..
lets use china's CBDC...
firstly there is no blockchain.. best comparison is LN or them 'federated' token subnetworks. but the first(of many) differences is, there is no master/main blockchain backing the value.
(no backed funding lock that is pegged from a blockchain utxo of mined coins)
instead the tokens come into existence by 'the peoples bank of china' and half a dozen private payment services co-signing a multig with X units of value..
this is their funding commitment
these tokens come to exist because they all agreed it exists and the bank has authorised its existence with the payment services
where by the outputs split china banks tokens into portions for the payment services to have control of on their keys
below that. each payment service then splits its portion
parts go between other payment services to allow (altnet buzzword: routing between services)
parts go between regional agents of the service to allow altnet buzzword: routing between service and agents)
these are signed by the services and agents AND the bank
below that. each agent then splits its portion
parts go to its customers
these are signed by the services and agents.. not the bank
in china's CBDC case. there are 3 levels of 'agents'
top level is for the super rich/large businesses
mid level is for the moderate income/small business
low level is the low income
each level has a 'reserve' limit (max balance/spend)
whereby the low level is small they dont require any KYC to open an account. but are limited in how much they can send and receive.
if they want to send/receive more they have to upgrade to the mid or top level agent app/wallet. which does require KYC
..
the low level wallets are not monitored like the top-mid are by the payment service. they are simply passing funds on request.(as said, small amounts so its not bother to check who done want and why)
..
the KYC data of mid-top levels are not on an open database or blockchain everyone in the system can see. its a closed database separate from the payment 'route' multisig. where by its held entirely and seen entirely only by the payment service and its agents.
1 payment service does not give full access to the peoples bank of china or its competing payment service.
however for levels top and mid. when a payment is "routed" the KYC of that payment is sent to the competing payment service.
no KYC is sent when those using the low level wallet is paying another individual on the network
the payment service does all the KYC storage and the suspicious activity monitoring, and reporting.
chinese authorities do not get told about every payment. nor all users of mid top KYC.
when there is a suspicious activity of top mid level. the payment details are sent to chinese authorities whom if requested the authorities then ask for KYC of that particular reports payment identity.
..
emphasis no government has nor ever will employ enough public sector analysts to watch every single citizens activities.. its impossible
instead they get the payment services to do the monitoring and only report the juicy suspicious stuff to government.
and no. china is not the exception. unlike fox news.. if you do real research. china is not spying on all its citizens all the time.. neither is the us government or any other government.
Governments have no need to use Blockchain tech in order to get what they want. Their CBDCs will consist of centralized databases that can be restricted access at will. It's more like a permissioned, private chain but without the "Blockchain" nametag. China has its own digital currency in circulation, but that hasn't improved its position in the global economy. Things will be even worse for Chinese citizens using the new digital cash system backed by the government, as everything will be audited by the central bank. Even though it may appear that the government isn't spying on people's transactions, they could be doing it behind the scenes. After all, they control the system. It's much easier to control what comes in/out of a centralized digital cash system, than traditional Fiat in the form of paper money. It's a dangerous world out there for anyone seeking true financial freedom. At least, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies will be there to save the day. As long as decentralization wins, there should be nothing to worry about. Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
Let say only about Terra 2.0, its success or failure should be differentiated with success or failure of Terra 1.0 and price of old LUNA.
Important for everyone, a success or failure project will have winners and losers in their games. All games from all projects are zero sum money games. Losers will blame their failures and loses as failures and loses of projects they invest in. In fact, it is only one part and there are more parts, investors themselves, general market too.
I disappointed with how Terra and Do Kwon handled tbe crisis and their proposal to compensate invetors with Luna 2.0 airdrop. It is not fair for many investors and can not cover their loses.
This tells us that most altcoins are simply not worth the investment. There's a reason many of them are called "shitcoins". Bitcoin is and will always be the best cryptocurrency in the world because of its commitment with decentralization and censorship-resistance. The day altcoins focus on the decentralization, will be the day we can say Bitcoin has real competition. But I don't think that will ever happen, as developers are too greedy these days. Convenience goes on top of security/reliability/decentralization. With what happened with the old Terra chain, I don't think investors will be inclined to put their money in the new version. There are far better projects with a wider ecosystem of dApps and tokens surrounding them. Who knows if Terra becomes history as another cryptocurrency takes its place in the not-so-distant future? Just my opinion |
|
|
|
That's the thing. In order to gain censorship resistance for using the platform, users must run their own node and use the DEXs app in their own local environments.
Actually, noting the link I mentioned, if users just run the app on their own or visit via decentralized/IPFS web without directly editing the code, they are still using the censored/restricted/blocked codebase.
So it is necessary, that in the worst case scenario, the interface must be forked in order to remove the code that contains to blocks some specific countries or tokens.
Well, people aren't that tech-savvy or knowledgeable about crypto to set up their own node in order to use DEXs freely without restrictions. They will take the easier approach (which is using DEXs directly through third-party APIs) than all the other way around. It's a good thing DEXs are open source, or we would've been toast by now. Expect regulations to increase in order to prevent as much people as possible from gaining access to the world of crypto. The Russia "sanctions evasion", money laundering activities on the Blockchain, and the Terra/LUNA collapse will be the perfect excuse for governments to increase regulatory pressure. At the core level, people will still get freedom thanks to the decentralized and censorship-resistant nature of crypto/Blockchain tech. But don't expect everything else to be the same (especially centralized exchanges) because of the reasons mentioned before. I have no problem with increasing regulations as long as decentralization wins in the long run. Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
Algorithmic stable coin are doomed to fail, all of them of that type failed to maintain their stable price peg, I do not see future in algorithmic stable coin, it is good not to buy this type of stable coin.
According to the link, USDD is not said to be algorithmic stable coin, or am I getting something wrong about it?
I guess the only way to maintain the peg would be to collaterize the stablecoin. USDD used to be a purely-algorithmic stablecoin, but after what happened with UST, it changed plans. It's now an "over-collaterized" stablecoin meant to give investors peace of mind. Whenever it'll hold its peg to infinity and beyond or simply fade into oblivion, it's yet to be seen. I think people are much safer cashing out their crypto to Fiat than putting all of their life savings in a stablecoin (especially algorithmic ones). May the UST crash be a valuable lesson to all of those who're greedy. Always remember to never put all of your eggs in one basket, to avoid major losses in the long run. Who knows if algorithmic stablecoins become history in the not-so-distant future? Just my opinion |
|
|
|
Stable coins have drawbacks on how they back their values with reserves. If they use algorithm and token-minting mechanism like UST and LUNA from Terra, that is terrible. You can not create a stable asset which is backed by a basket of all volatile assets. Even you add 100 volatile assets in a basket, it is still volatile. It is like you open a margin position on exchange, which is backed by a collateral from 100 altcoins. Is it safe for your collateral from liquidation ?
CBDCs can be safer because they can be backed by physical assets like fiat currencies or gold bars but we can not verify their reserves. Moreover, what happened in Venezuela with their Peso fiat currency is an example that CBDC from small nation likely weak and vulnerable to financial crisis nationally or globally. Recent months we see what happened with Russian rube and it is another example.
However if I have to choose between CBDC and stable coin, I will choose CBDC from big nation like USD.
Only collaterized stablecoins will be able to maintain their peg as they're backed by real world reserves (usually Fiat currencies like the US Dollar and the Euro). The rest are simply doomed to failure. CBDCs are more trustworthy than stablecoins simply because they're backed by the full faith and credit of mainstream governments worldwide. Stablecoins are issued by private companies that are subject to regulations imposed by the government. They have some restrictions, unlike traditional Fiat currencies. I'm pretty sure people will choose a CBDC over a stablecoin anytime because of the reasons mentioned before. Things are just getting started so it's going to take a while before we're able to tell whenever stablecoins will survive after the launch of CBDCs or all the other way around. Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
Paid Received. Thank you!  |
|
|
|
thanks for the nice pictures! much better as with my iphone cam Just for the info, a new design is coming... Again 21 pieces that should look like this. This time without Bitcoin logo but referring to Cypherpunks and Satoshi, the idea behind bitcoin. Trust only in Bitcoin, Cypherpunks and Satoshi Nakamoto for digital freedom  Nice. Will it come as a brass coin too? Or can we choose the material? I'd be nice to have coins made with the new design in aluminum, brass, copper, and silver. But that would depend on the cost, of course. I'll keep an eye on this thread for further updates. |
|
|
|
0.0034 BTC
Congrats for the winning bid. Thanks everyone for participating in my auction! PM to the winner incoming shortly. |
|
|
|
I'd just like to point out that Zcash always relied on a set of private keys being created and exchanged securely in a so-called 'ceremony' made by a set of people (developers) when they started the project. I wouldn't trust a dime to a system like this. Apparently, they planned to move away from this in May (last month), but the text is still in past tense, so I have no idea if this ever happened. In May of 2022, Zcash will begin using the Halo 2 proving system, which removes reliance on a complex setup ceremony and upgrades the underlying cryptography. But when Zcash launched in 2016, its zero-knowledge proofs required a setup phase to produce public parameters that allowed users to construct and verify private transactions.
At that time, some random numbers were sampled (which we refer to as the “toxic waste”) and were then used to construct the parameters.
After the setup phase, the toxic waste had to be destroyed to prevent counterfeiting of Zcash.
That was at the beginning. But the recent network upgrade has changed all of that (apparently) by removing the trusted setup. Some said Zcash was compromised from the start, as the company (Electric Coin Company) introduced a backdoor to help governments circumvent/bypass privacy features. I guess the only true privacy coin is Monero with its proven track record of development and innovation. Governments don't like privacy, so they will do their best to bring the revolution down to the ground. It'll be up to us to help support privacy-preserving technologies to prevent governments from winning in the long run. As long as decentralization prevails, there should be nothing to worry about. Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
Sometimes such ambiguous statements are also made public. This reflects that we are too ambiguous in judging something. Elon Musk is not a fan of Dogecoin, he just wants to take advantage of Dogecoin. We should not get caught up in the various issues that are being developed in the media. Elon Musk's Bitcoin assets are much larger than Dogecoin's assets. He couldn't possibly pump up the price of Bitcoin the way he pumped the price of Dogecoin. So he saw the opportunity in Dogecoin.
Couldn't agree more with you, mate. Elon Musk is only taking advantage of Dogecoin by pumping it across social media platforms. He doesn't care about the cryptocurrency itself as long as his pockets are filled with money. Most people are foolish enough to think crypto is all about Elon Musk, when in fact, it is not. Anything that Elon Musk says can either positively or negatively affect Dogecoin's price on the market. I'm waiting for the day when Elon Musk gets bored of Dogecoin so that people can move on to other things. DOGE may be the oldest "meme coin" in existence, but that doesn't mean it's meant to go sky-high in price. It was developed as a joke and it will stay that way forever. Not even the transition from PoW to PoS will make Dogecoin better than Bitcoin itself. Who knows if this "shitcoin" goes all the way to zero once the hype fades away into oblivion? Just my opinion |
|
|
|
Well, that's not far off from happening to every alts in the market. One greedy mistake from the developers/founder that mints millions or billions of supply, that would always cause a tragic fall. What happened to Luna might happen to every alts in the market.
Crypto investors has no reason to be afraid of investing in crypto again if they understand the risks lies after they put their money into it. Only those who has no basic understanding how crypto works will get afraid of what happened to Luna.
I don't think what happened with Terra/LUNA was a result of greed, but rather bad planning from developers and the founder. They tried to save the UST peg, but increasing LUNA's supply did not help. After things didn't turn out to be as they hoped for, a new chain was proposed aiming to bring a fresh start to the project. The community disagreed with the fork, yet developers (and the founder) continued to carry on with the same. If they would've listened in the first place, perhaps Terra/LUNA would've been sitting among the top ranks in market cap by now. Something similar might happen with other alts if developers are careless. There's a reason why Bitcoin is still the #1 cryptocurrency in the world. While other coins lack decentralization and are often hyped, Bitcoin provides a sound financial system that delivers as intended. Who knows if 99.99% of cryptocurrencies disappear (LUNA included) within the not-so-distant future? Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
Did you ever do any kind of research about the origin of energy used to mine bitcoin? Or do you just read articles written by people who know nothing about bitcoin and their job is just to create FUD? Another advise, go look also the amount of energy that the bank system and gold extraction required, and check especially what kind of energy they use, then you tell me if bitcoin is bad and not environmentally friendly  Yes. I'm fully aware about the origins of the energy used to mine Bitcoin. But the general public does not know about this. Mainstream media is evil, so they will keep pushing the "high energy consumption" narrative in order to try to destroy Bitcoin as much as possible. Governments could be behind this, as they don't want people to gain true financial freedom. You're absolutely right that the bank system and gold extraction consumes a lot more energy than Bitcoin itself. Most people believe what they're told (instead of doing their own research), so they will agree with a full mining ban just to "save the planet". So far, only China and the state of New York have an anti Bitcoin mining agenda. The vast majority of the world's governments is on Bitcoin's side. As long as the majority is supporting Bitcoin, there should be nothing to worry about. Just my opinion |
|
|
|
That sucks. I've thought crypto/Blockchain tech was all about decentralization and censorship-resistance. Blocking access to some tokens would make the aforementioned "DEXs" no different than any ordinary centralized exchange. While it's still possible to trade directly via smart contracts, not everyone knows how to do it. With censorship on the web interface, governments will be able to successfully enforce KYC/AML laws. That wouldn't had been possible if the interface was hosted on an alternative network that's decentralized by design (eg: Maidsafe, ZeroNet, etc.). Regulations seem to be increasing in the crypto sector, so we haven't seen the worst yet. Who knows what will mainstream governments do next? Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
Highest bid so far: 0.003 BTC
Auction ends tomorrow! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
