To clarify, if I'm not mistaken, the bill does not call to ban Bitcoin mining. I guess the word ban is not apt at the very least, a FUD at most. The bill simply calls for a moratorium. The moratorium will last for two years. Moreover, the bill only applies to certain Bitcoin mining operations, those that use electricity coming from nonrenewable sources. Those Bitcoin mining operations that use green energy shall be allowed to continue within and beyond the 2-year moratorium.
Anyway, I don't believe that there will be a worldwide ban on Bitcoin mining.
As long as Bitcoin mining isn't banned completely, there should be nothing to worry about. The moratorium will only last for a short amount of time, so my guess is that New York miners will resume their operations in full after the dust settles. So far, only one state in the US has taken the approach to "ban" Bitcoin mining but we cannot discard the possibility of other states or countries doing the same in the future. Only mining with alternative energy will change governments' stance against Bitcoin for good. With decentralization at the forefront of Bitcoin, nothing should be able to stand in its way. Just my thoughts  |
|
|
|
I have one of those DIY Monero poker chips from Krypto Keepsafes. I've never used Monero for anything else other than redeeming certain pre-funded/buyer funded coins. I was wondering how to load the keys under the hologram of the poker chip, since Monero requires a view key and spend key to be able to access the funds. Fitting both keys under the hologram would be quite a challenging task to achieve. After all, both keys have a long string of characters behind them. If you know how to load DIY Monero coins, please let me know. Any help, suggestions and/or recommendations will be greatly appreciated. Thank you.  |
|
|
|
It seems that governments are increasing their regulatory efforts after what happened with Russia "evading sanctions" and the recent Terra/LUNA crash. Day by day, we're seeing centralized exchanges requiring additional information in order to comply with KYC/AML as much as possible. There have been rumors that governments will target decentralized exchanges (DEXs) to require them to comply with KYC/AML laws. While we know this is impossible at the technical level (due to the decentralized nature of such exchanges), it's easy enough to prosecute the developers if their identities are publicly known across the web. A decentralized exchange requiring KYC will greatly defeat crypto/Blockchain tech's purpose in my own opinion. It will bring back the middleman which is the single point of failure crypto was meant to avoid in the first place. What do you think will happen with DEXs if governments require them to comply with KYC/AML laws? Will they cooperate or not? If they don't comply, will that mean using a DEX be considered as an illegal practice? Your input will be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. |
|
|
|
Most recently, the state of New York (in the US) passed a bill to ban Bitcoin mining due to environmental concerns. Some time ago, the EU did something similar (although it came into law) making both investors and miners largely concerned about the future of PoW cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Dogecoin. If FUD related to PoW mining damaging the environment persists (remember Elon Musk also criticizing Bitcoin?), then cryptocurrencies with PoW algorithms will be forced to switch to PoS altogether. Bitcoin will be the mostly affected since it's the biggest PoW cryptocurrency in the world. Growth for the pioneer cryptocurrency will stifle, forcing miners to close down their business for good. Do you think countries worldwide will ban Bitcoin mining due to environmental concerns? If not, why? If mining is banned, do you think Bitcoin will switch to PoS? Will it still survive being a PoW cryptocurrency? Your input will be greatly appreciated. Thanks. |
|
|
|
It seems like the US' SEC is now investigating Binance for allegedly doing money laundering practices. If proven to be true, this could be a huge blow to CZ's exchange as we speak. Not only will this affect Binance's exchange reputation but also it's very own cryptocurrency (as well as the rest of the crypto market). With Binance controlling most of the crypto market, any bad news like these could mean a bloodbath in crypto prices within the short term. BNB is known to be centralized (even though many claim it to be decentralized), so it's possible the cryptocurrency will vanish if things go the wrong way. What do you think about these latest developments? Will the SEC succeed in its case against Binance? Or will it fail? Do you think BNB will still survive? If not, why? Your input will be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much. |
|
|
|
I have a set of Crypto Stamps 2.0 that I've bought a long time ago. They're sealed, never opened since the time of purchase.  I was tempted to open them just in case I have the ultra rare red stamp on my hands. But I'm not sure if opening the stamps will affect their value, so I'm asking for guidance in this regard. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you |
|
|
|
Have you seen any government that make how their CBDC blockchain works? I have seen none, unlike bitcoin.
Even if they use blockchain, fiat will remain fiat. CBDCs are just modern fiat. No privacy, can be seized, restricted from the owner and it is controlled by the central bank.
As far as I know, no government has a working product except China. It's going to take quite some time before we enter the era of CBDCs. From developing the new digital cash system from making people use it on top of paper money, we're talking about a minimum of 5-10 years for governments' CBDCs to become a widespread success. The biggest downside of CBDCs is that all transactions will be completely visible by banks and governments themselves. It'll be the end of privacy for good. At least, decentralized cryptocurrencies will be there to save the day. As long as there's an alternative to CBDCs, there should be nothing to worry about. Just my opinion |
|
|
|
It is a memecoin which it would really be staying up that way and one of the factors that would disqualified it which it does have that big supply and i dont actually see its utility which is mostly been used on gambling.
We do even see some meme coins in the market which do follows on the same principle of this one but since this coin is old enough and still kicking then it cant really be denied its potential to last up for more years to come.
Supply alone is a solid indication that this isnt really that something that could surpass bitcoin and just to mind off even those good top ranking altcoins in the market cant even do the same thing.
People can't expect a "meme coin" to overcome the original cryptocurrency which started it all. It can't even be taken seriously because of the inflation "baked" into the protocol. Dogecoin's original creators/founders even said that the coin was meant to be a joke. Unless there's a reduction in supply and the project comes up with something truly innovative, I don't see it going anywhere soon. There are far better cryptocurrencies on the market with a proven track record of development and innovation. I'd say both Bitcoin and Ethereum are better than Dogecoin itself for many obvious reasons. How far will the "meme coin" go will greatly depend on mainstream adoption. It may never overcome BTC, but it might stay with us for quite a long time. After all, it's one of the oldest cryptocurrencies in existence. Who knows what the future holds for DOGE and the entire crypto/Blockchain industry? Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
Maybe we will be rich if bitcoin will reach at least $1 million, and now is the right time to accumulate as the market is in bearish mode again.
I would go for at least 0.1 BTC, that's my target, but first I will have to settle my BTC loan first so I could start saving bitcoin that I will intend to hold for a long period of time.
It all depends on the price. If Bitcoin is projected to go all the way up to $1m, then it's possible you'll have a hefty sum of money in your pocket sometime in the future. 0.01 BTC multiplied by a market price of $1m, equals $10k. To really become rich, you're going to need to hold a lot more Bitcoin in your wallet. That is if BTC will stay within the $1m range. But there's always the possibility it will go even higher in price. As they always say, "the sky is the limit". As long as you're persistent, you'll be on a road towards becoming filthy rich. Just my opinion |
|
|
|
government cannot control bitcoin (the technology) just like they cant tell a bottle of wine to stop being swallowed.
however governments can regulate PEOPLE. and laws apply to people. because people can be punished and people can read the law.
(bitcoin(and wine) has no brain or eyes. it cant read paper laws. it cant be punished. but people can)
governments can regulate businesses(run by people). and create laws obided by people.
people can try to evade the law. but at risk of punishment if found. and governments can find ways to find people (like how silk road creator was found even with things like tor, proxies)..
yes the laws on alcohol (1920's prohibition.. and under age drinking) has not been effective. and people still drunk it. ... though many people were also caught and punished
yes the laws on drugs ('war on drugs') has not been effective. and people still got high ... though many people were also caught and punished.
..
so although drugs are still available, and alcohol is still available even to underage people and even when it was prohibited in the last century... and bitcoin will still be available .. people using them are limited in their freedom and openness about their utility of it
..
many businesses are not lobbying against it. because these limitations become opportunities. if they can afford the fines or afford the licencing to become legitimate merchants of the limited use items. they can monopolise the market and not have much competition.
regulations are the opposite of the 'free market'.. but hey.. thats capitalism
(im against monopoly and capitalism, and where regulations are used to stifle growth/openness.. but i atleast understand it.)
Too much regulations will do more harm than good for the growth of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies on the market. Governments want to abolish privacy because they want to prevent people from gaining true freedom and financial independence. It's a good thing most cryptocurrencies are decentralized, or they would've been easier targets by mainstream governments. Most people don't care about their privacy these days, so they will use CBDCs even if such currencies will be under the full scope of governments and central banks alike. After all, most people don't have nothing to hide. Fortunately, privacy won't go anywhere soon thanks to anonymous cryptocurrencies like Monero and Zcash. While governments can impose regulations to restrict or even ban the use of privacy coins, they can't be enforced because of the decentralized and censorship-resistant nature of crypto/Blockchain tech. I hope crypto remains that way in order to minimize government's power over the people as much as possible. Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
Abandon it completely hehe. If you can't then there's really no other way to save on on-chain fees than to wait for less congestion in the network. I'd rather avoid using Ethereum unless it's an emergency. There are plenty of chains to choose from and there's an increasing number of chain interoperability implementation.
Other chains may have cheaper fees and faster confirmation times, but they're often less secure than Ethereum itself. Consider how Solana is a victim of constant network outages due to its centralized design (also because of developers' inability to fix/remediate issues as soon as possible). This shows us how unreliable alternative blockchain networks are compared against Ethereum. The world's second-largest cryptocurrency by market cap is still the most decentralized and censorship-resistant cryptocurrency after Bitcoin. I guess you get what you pay for (high fees in exchange for unmatched security/reliability). As I've said before, off-chain scaling solutions help but not many dApps support them. There's really no other option than to wait until gas fees decline to perform a transaction. Hopefully, the PoS upgrade will make ETH more accessible to the average person. As long as decentralization prevails, nothing else matters. Just my opinion |
|
|
|
I don't think the price of LUNA will return to the way it was because LUNA has lost the trust of all investors and I also found that the total supply of LUNA continues to grow. the team has failed to return the UST price and this is the end of the big altcoin called LUNA which was once in the top 10 of CMC, which is to become a meme coin.
Only the supply of Terra Classic kept growing at a non-stop rate (not sure about now). But the new Terra chain will only have 1 billion coins in circulation. Just like you said, the project has lost the trust of all of the investors. It's going to be difficult (if not impossible) to bring the project back to the way it was. With better alternatives on the market, only a small number of people will switch to the newly-created chain. Whenever it'll have a future or not, will greatly depend on the community itself. If developers, individuals, and startups/companies work together, Terra 2.0 will be going somewhere. Otherwise, not. Crypto behaves in many strange and bizarre ways so anything could happen in the future. Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
The LUNA team committed a big scam. The airdrop must be for all UST token holders both before and after the attack. Luna tokens were distributed only to owners of UST tokens before the attack, who used their tokens in Anchor Protocol. Holders of UST tokens before the attack did not receive compensation for losses.
That's totally unfair. Without taking into consideration all UST holders, the crypto project will quickly lose investors' confidence. I've seen investors' reactions towards the new Terra 2.0, and I have to say they're not pretty good. Without solid backing from these key players on the market, how will the project succeed in the long run? I hope the LUNA/UST crash won't scare away investors from other cryptocurrencies, or that would mean the end for this exciting revolution. At least, the negative effects of the crash won't last for long. As long as decentralization prevails, nothing else matters. Just my opinion |
|
|
|
That's too naive to think that if this project has not yet become a failed project. As far as i know if so many people are against the proposal but do kwon was still executing what he was thinkin if that was true. This project didn't even hear the community's response. The founder keep creating the new token to avoid his fault. Creating the token was free but he has been making billions of money gone for nothing. This project was so garbage as fuck.
There's no hope for the new version of terra luna. This will be dumped so hard in the future.
The Terra team failed to listen to the community, so I doubt the project will become a huge success anytime soon. Investors are also frustrated because they lost a lot of money during the crash. Even though the new coin is trading at a higher price than the "classic version", it's still below the latest All-time-high of $120 per coin. The current bear market will make it difficult for the new coin (Terra 2.0) to rise in price at a fast pace. There are far better options with a proven track record of development and innovation. I'd advise anyone to steer clear from this project, just to avoid any undesired loses in the short term. Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
Bitcoin was completely different case than the altcoin project. Altcoin like ethereum, terra and etc were coming from the funding by investors. They need to reveal their identity to create project to be trusted by the investors.
Wasn't Bitcoin's blockchain technology created under the premise of "don't trust, verify"? If that's so, then why do other altcoin projects need investor's trust to succeed? If Bitcoin became widely successful without ever revealing its creator, so can any other altcoin on the market. I see this nothing more than an agenda from mainstream governments in order to enforce KYC/AML as much as possible. With a publicly recognizable developer team (and/or founder), it's easy to prosecute each person to shut down the project for good. That cannot be said about Bitcoin, since there's no one to hold accountable for his/her actions. Consider how the Terra's price crash put the South Korean government under Do Kwon's (the founder) tail. That and the fact that someone went to Do Kwon's house to complain about his loss of money, tells us the dangers of making crypto project's team members publicly known to everyone worldwide. That wouldn't had been possible if Terra's team members (including the founder) were all anonymous. Nowadays, money talks so it's very unlikely crypto projects will change their stance anytime soon. As long as there's lack of anonymity among team members, it'll be impossible to achieve true decentralization and censorship-resistance. Just my opinion |
|
|
|
Decentralized from what? This is even worst compared with the collaterized stable token like DAI or USDJ. The only stable token that has been making even millionaires lose whole of their money in one night. This is the worst stable token in the crypto history, this is also triggering a huge dump to the market.
Decentralized in the sense that's entirely driven by algorithms. It isn't based on real world reserves, making it the perfect "tool" for decentralized finance. Trusting a collaterized stablecoin (even if it's claimed to be decentralized by the issuer) is no different than trusting a third party (someone correct me if I'm wrong). Algorithmic stablecoins are practically new to the industry, so it's going to take some time before they're perfected. With the UST collapse, I'm confident developers will improve other algorithmic stablecoins for the better. This kind of stable token will have no future. UST has proven that if algorithmic stable token was a failed experiment. Should we revive it again? this is just another disaster for anyone.
I think it's still too early to tell that algorithmic stablecoins are a complete failure. After all, they're just starting to blossom. There's high hopes developers will continue working on such coins in order to improve them for the better. With better algorithmic stablecoins, decentralized finance apps will take the world by storm. The possibilities are endless. Who knows what the future holds for these new kinds of stablecoins? Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
Payment has been processed!
Another payment received. Thank you so much, DogecoinMachine and Crypto.Games team!  |
|
|
|
Hi, quick question,
Who signed this poster. The artist or poster creator. Are they the same person? If so who are they?
Thanks D
I think it was signed by the creator himself. Tecshare sold me the poster a long time ago. You can find more info about the poster on the original thread here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=756955.msg8533167#msg8533167 |
|
|
|
Could you please post a photo, where the whole perimeter of the front side of the poster is visible?
I can see in the 3rd photo, that part of the edges are in bad shape, and I would like to know how much that affects the front side of the poster. (if you could add additional images of the front side, zooming/concentrating on the affected edges parts, that would be really helpful too)
Thanks
Sure, no problem. I will come up with new photos in a few hours. Thanks for your interest! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
