I think if governments do it, they can create a tax free economy which can reduce the risk of money laundering, and it ain't necessary that those assets are pegged to a dollar, it can be pegged to a unit of gold (true digital gold)
If the federal reserve wanted a peg to gold, they'd have done it already with normal fiat currency. Obviously they don't want it because they can't freely print money. Also, do you really think they'd want a tax free economy lol? |
|
|
|
So.. why not just save the money that you would use to pay for the mining electricity, and use it to buy USDT/USDC?  |
|
|
|
|
The fact that I can easily use Bitcointalk using Tor, because Bitcointalk is not some super unnecessarily modern feature-filled website that would take forever to load and that would take a lot of unnecessary resources.
|
|
|
|
|
I mean, this really isn't the first time a service has banned bitcoin/crypto-related ads. Also, this is just Netflix — it's really no biggie compared to the likes of if Facebook/Twitter/Google does it. Heck I didn't even know Netflix had ads.
|
|
|
|
My question is; Why then do people talk about Bitcoin mining power consumption like it is the most and worst energy consumer?
In summary: A lot of people love videogames, but hate Bitcoin(and crypto) due to the rise in price of graphics cards (or with some people, because they think they missed out already). Hence they're biased against Bitcoin despite videogames using more power. |
|
|
|
Attending a bitcoin conference is a good idea , some people learn faster when they are In an interactive room and what they have grab from speaker will remain in them. Going to a bitcoin conference you need to be also smart because some speakers who organise conference do it to make money ,some don't have any knowledge to give out.
Unless the Bitcoin conference you go attend to is crap. Tip: If you really really want to go to a Bitcoin conference, do research on who the speakers are. You mostly wouldn't want a bunch of random nobody's. |
|
|
|
I don't think the 5000 bitcoins can have that much impact on the price of Bitcoin considering the Bitcoin daily trading volume, and not forget to mention the fact that we are already in the bear market where a lot of weak hands will Panic and sell, but that is not a good decision any ways to sale when the price is low such as this will only lead to loses.
Not unless the owner dumps the 5000 BTC on spot in one go, which shouldn't be the case if he/she has half of a brain. It's either going to be done through TWAP, or through OTC; whereas both options should significantly decrease the sell offer's effects on the market. |
|
|
|
|
Just the typical pump attempt thread for a low-liquidity token(probably besides the LUNA one, which was just an attempt to get link clicks), nothing really special.
|
|
|
|
So if you're a USDC user, you should think twice, because I wouldn't be surprised if we see something worse in the coming days. So it is good to be careful in advance.
You're most probably over analyzing this. Chances are, USDC deposits and withdrawals are still going to be available — it's just that it will be automatically converted to BUSD at deposit just so they have far less USD trading pairs(hence having more liquidity). And it's obviously also a marketing ploy for BUSD. |
|
|
|
i think what he meant to say is that the price of bitcoin might get dumped a little if that guy or that company tried to sell it all at once, maybe he just wanted to warn us about it, $100 million dollars is quite a lot, if dumped it we'll see a decrease in the price of bitcoin and therefore in the whole market.
And yet, it still doesn't matter. Even if it actually is going to be sold, this isn't the first time and this definitely isn't the last time such an amount of coins will be sold. Yet another nothingburger in the long run. |
|
|
|
It would probably create an entire new wave of miners. Lower power, low noise, perfect for home mining. Perhaps get back to the rack mount style like the antminer S2 / Spondoolies tech miners so people could place it in their equipment racks and nobody would know the difference.
Yes, the governments could play whack-a-mole trying to find it all but it would never happen.
Since BTC is for people to do with what they want, it can be a store of value, it can be a hedge against inflation, it can be an investment, it can be a cash replacement. It can be whatever you want it to be. And if someone does not agree, fine you don't have to agree it's what YOU want, not what THEY want.
-Dave
Precisely. People are forgetting about the difficult adjustments. If large-scale mining businesses would be ruled out, then it would be highly more viable for at-home miners. There's a reason it was designed this way — for Bitcoin to work regardless if there was a huge censorship campaign for large-scale miners. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin isn't a waste of electricity regardless if you can heat your home with it or not. Because in the first place, something being a "waste" of electricity is totally subjective. If you think that Bitcoin is useless, then of course you'd think that it's a waste of electricity, and vice versa. The same reason that I could also think that wasting electricity on stuff like televisions is a waste of electricity, while some would say otherwise.
|
|
|
|
By lately some people have been claiming that "Bitcoin's power consumption is a central point of failure - someone can just switch off the electricity and all miners stop". And in particular "Bitcoin will not survive the coming winter". Both of these are wrong.
It was a tremendously bad argument in the first place. It's not like stopping all the miners is going to take a single(or a few) press of a button; it's going to require some sort of extensive global government collaboration to literally look for and stop every single miner(including miners that only run their operations at home). It's simply not realistically viable. |
|
|
|
|
Regardless if it was just an exchange or maybe actually a real person, it doesn't matter. Everyone has every right to buy and sell their bitcoin at whatever price they want. It's literally none of our business.
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't it obvious though? There's a negative economic effect due to local businesses not being able to operate properly, and probably employees not being able to work (obviously due to the floods). A flood in itself wouldn't cause an economic crisis unless it's a greatly prolonged flood though(probably months?).
|
|
|
|
|
I'm actually quite surprised there isn't a field for mIRC nicknames or address identifiers. mIRC was the shit back then, with it just purely text-based and very light-weight. Don't get me wrong — I love Discord, especially the gifs and custom emojis, but the privacy concerns suck.
|
|
|
|
The above two statements are in consecutive paragraphs. It appears that Coinbase is accused of *both* having too little and too much security for their customers' accounts.
Anyone can file a lawsuit for any reason. There are many class action lawsuits that are meritless and are often filed by greedy lawyers whose intent is to shake down a company for a settlement that involves nearly nothing for the plaintiffs and a large fee for themselves.
Quite weird, ain't it? Honestly account locks suck but it's better for Coinbase to be overly strict with their security rather than the opposite. People just look at it too much as a hindrance rather than a security measure. |
|
|
|
I don't think that the scarcity of Bitcoin makes it a very good store of value. As a matter of fact, at this moment, I do not consider Bitcoin as a reliable store of value due to its high volatility. It is also one of the reasons why Bitcoin is having difficulty getting the acknowledgment of the authority of being money despite Bitcoin actually being money.
It's because most people seem to want a non-volatile asset when talking about store of value assets, rather than an asset that has long-term appreciation. Hence why a lot of people look at gold as a "store of value" — because it's a lot less volatile despite it performing like crap throughout the years. |
|
|
|
But scarcity is most important for it. We can also see some NFT's are very scarce but nobody will consider NFT as a store of value because NFT is not fungible.
In addition, people need a perspective to sell it for a higher price again.
It is important, undoubtedly. But again, scarcity alone doesn't automatically make something a store of value, or even worth anything in the first place; especially for something that's digital. |
|
|
|
|
Scarcity in itself doesn't make something a good store of value. I could make a coin that only has a very scarce supply of 10 coins, and it would end up being worthless.
It's Bitcoin's decentralization and censorship resistance (among other things) is what makes it attractive to people. Bitcoin being scarce and having a predictable inflation schedule just completes the entire package.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
