2016 and 2017, at that time many communities were interested in learning and learning about Bitcoin, but since the pandemic and the price of Bitcoin did not have a good impact on them, many turned to other internet worlds.
It sounds from this that plenty of those people who previously were interested but have since dropped out, were interested solely from the perspective of short-term profit. If no short-term profit means their interest in bitcoin evaporates, then that suggests that it wasn't bitcoin they were interested in in the first place, but profit. I would contend that it is only in times of difficulty that you can see who is truly interested in a thing; once the good-time profit-seekers have been stripped away, all that remains is those who are in it for the long-term, and who can see the potentially transformative vision of what bitcoin can be. Of course all interest is welcome, regardless of reason, but if a large number of people are motivated solely by profit, then their interest will ebb and flow with the vagaries of the market, and this can potentially give a misleading picture of the number of people who are 'truly' interested. |
|
|
|
Just thought I'd post a picture of a black hole. You know, a galactic attention-grabber, that sucks in and destroys everything around it, and then spews out a jet of deadly crap.  |
|
|
|
Does anybody know of any good ETH forks worth investing these days?
I don't think there are any good ETH forks. There is a legitimate reason for ETC to exist, but that's the only one that's not just a money-grabbing scam that exploits the name of ETH. Every ETH fork apart from ETC is pointless, offers nothing and has no use. As for ETC - I don't think it really has a long-term future; ETH is and will remain the main version - particularly with ETH 2.0 and staking coming soon, whilst ETC remains PoW. |
|
|
|
The author seems to be overreacting.
I think he is just using this bad event for his own profit. It's not cool.
I agree. All the adverts I see from companies over the last few months trying to tie in to Coronavirus have been bad enough, but this is a step up again. This is a huge protest against endemic racism. The author shouldn't try to use the publicity it generates to promote their shitty book. FFS. |
|
|
|
I have earned about 3-4 thousand dollars and many coins are not even traded on exchanges yet
Do you mean you've earned $3k, plus some from additional coins that aren't traded yet? Or do you mean $3k including those that aren't traded, with the estimate of $3k being based on their ICO price? Obviously a big difference between the two as prices can often tank once a coin becomes tradeable. |
|
|
|
I actually bought one of those on eBay a few years back, for the novelty. I've just had a quick look, and they are now going for less than I paid. Shows what you get from trusting in fiat...  |
|
|
|
Logic is the basis of science, maths, laws, and all of modern society and technology. It is hugely important. And it's not just human, all thinking animals apply at least basic logic. Without it, we simply wouldn't survive. However logic can be misused when it is applied selectively or (in the case of false syllogisms, for example,) incorrectly. It is common human experience to have an emotional response to something, and then try to apply selective logic and selective facts in order to justify that response. Really the emotional response, and the determination of whether a thing is right or wrong, should come after all pertinent facts have been considered, not before. I'm not saying that we should be unfeeling robots and not have snap emotional responses, rather that we should be willing to amend that initial emotional reaction once we have considered the facts, not merely seek out only those facts that reinforce it. We are the product of randomness, we are the children of irrationality
I would disagree. Whilst DNA mutations are random, the determination of which of those mutations survive through natural selection has much less to do with randomness. In general there are logical reasons that certain mutations survive long enough to pass into a next generation. |
|
|
|
You've missed the whole point of paying in their coin/token.
The new projects that are not listed at exchanges and without their own market place will always pay in their own token (as long as there will be bounty hunters accepting that) because in this case they don't pay anything from their pockets. If the project has success and gets listed, you'll sell for other investors' money. If it doesn't have success, tough luck, you've worked for free. It's a risk the bounty hunter have to think of when he jumps for enlisting under their banner. One has to check first if it has a good enough chance for success and listing.
This is it exactly. Additionally, if you are working on a bounty for a particular project, then you are promoting that project. If you are not happy to be paid in the coins of that project, this suggests that you don't really believe the project is worthwhile or will be a success - in which case you shouldn't be promoting it! |
|
|
|
It might be worth me sharing this again, a summary of how QCs can affect bitcoin: Mining can potentially be much quicker with QCs.The current PoW difficulty system can be exploited by a Quantum Computer using Grover’s algorithm to drastically reduce the number of computational steps required to solve the problem. The theorised advantage that a quantum computer (or parallelised QCs) have over classical computers is a couple of orders of magnitude, so ~x100 easier to mine. This isn’t necessarily a game-changer, as this QC speed advantage is likely to be some years away, by which time classical computers will surely have increased speed to reduce the QC advantage significantly. It is worth remembering that QCs aren’t going up against run-of-the-mill standard equipment here, but rather against the very fast ASICs that have been set up specifically for mining. Re-used BTC addresses are 100% vulnerable to QCs.Address Re-Use. Simply, any address that is re-used is 100% vulnerable because a QC can use Shor’s algorithm to break public-key cryptography. This is a quantum algorithm designed specifically to solve for prime factors. As with Grover’s algorithm, the key is in dramatically reducing the number of computational steps required to solve the problem. The upshot is that for any known public key, a QC can use Shor’s approach to derive the private key. The vulnerability cannot be overstated here. Any re-used address is utterly insecure.Processed (accepted) transactions are theoretically somewhat vulnerable to QCs.Theoretically possible because the QC can derive private keys from used addresses. In practice however processed transactions are likely to be quite secure as QCs would need to out-hash the network to double spend. Unprocessed (pending) transactions are extremely vulnerable to QCs.As above, a QC can derive a private key from a public key. So for any unprocessed transaction, a QC attacker can obtain the private key and then create their own transaction whilst offering a much higher fee, so that the attacker’s transaction gets onto the blockchain first, ahead of the genuine transaction. So block interval and QC speed are both crucial here – it all depends on whether or not the a QC can hack the key more quickly than the block is processed. Possible defences... Defences using classical computers.- Modify the PoW system such that QCs don’t have any advantage over classical computers. Defending PoW is not as important as defending signatures (as above), because PoW is less vulnerable. However various approaches that can protect PoW against QCs are under development, such as Cuckoo Cycle, Momentum and Equihash.
- Modify the signature system to prevent easy derivation of private keys. Again, various approaches are under development, which use some pretty esoteric maths. There are hash-based approaches such as XMSS and SPHINCS, but more promising (as far as I can tell) are the lattice-based approaches such as Dilithium, which I think is already used by Komodo.
Defences using quantum computers.As I’ve said a few times, I’m more of a bumbling enthusiast than an expert, but exploiting quantum properties to defend against QC attack seems to me a very good idea. In theory properties such as entanglement and the uncertainty principle can offer an unbreakable defence. Again, people are busy researching this area. There are some quite astonishing ideas out there, such as this one. ... but apart from all of this, migrating bitcoin to a quantum-proof system brings its own challenges. Coins will only be safe once they have been moved to new, quantum-proof addresses. What happens to those coins that aren't moved? They would remain vulnerable, and could still be stolen using a QC. Should these be burned to prevent theft, or should the theft be permitted? This is an important question with no obvious consensus on how it should be resolved. Potentially millions of coins would be vulnerable. Theft could tank the price and damage bitcoin irreparably, but burning 'someone else's' coins could do the same thing. Theymos brought this subject up years ago, and as far as I'm aware it is still a contentious issue. |
|
|
|
|
Congratulations on achieving 0.1 BTC, and on setting yourself that new goal. You sound very sensible, and have done well by earning the money. There is a risk I suppose in that setting a lofty goal can then lead you to take risks to achieve it - it would be tempting for a lot of people to start gambling that 0.1 BTC in risky trades in the hope of coming out x10 up... but it sounds like you won't do that. If you are tempted, remember how risky trading can be!
|
|
|
|
@Cnut237 In the same article you propose: There are, however, potentially major challenges for anyone wanting to mine such an asteroid. How do you get it back to Earth through the atmosphere and land it without destroying the planet? Who do you sell it to in space if you can’t get it back to Earth? Source: https://physicsworld.com/a/the-asteroid-trillionaires/Going there and then mine all the metals is one issue, and then transport it to the earth is another issue. So much risk involved there hence I'm not sure if private companies can bear all those risks. I've heard some compelling arguments about Columbus was funded by the government i.e., The Kingdom of Spain, therefore this kind of project might (only) be possible with the government's money. Big risk, bigger reward. Commercial space flights were said to not be viable, it would always need central funding - but that is no longer the case. Commercial space exploitation is the logical next step. Yes, there will be huge logistical challenges, but when the rewards are this lucrative, there will be a lot of effort put into achieving the goal. I wouldn't bet against it. |
|
|
|
|
OP, thanks for sharing. Most of us - myself included - have similar stories about how we have made bad trading decisions and ended up at a loss. It is important that we don't dwell on this sort of thing, but instead we learn from it and move on. If everything went as planned 100% of the time, we'd never learn anything - so hopefully the loss is not too terrible, and you'll be able to buy some more bitcoin and start again.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin promotes renewable energy.
Bitcoin reduces consumption.
I don't think PoW can ever be considered environmentally friendly. For the second point, yes, bitcoin's deflationary nature incentivises saving rather than spending - but it's arguable that this will result in bitcoin becoming more of a store-of-value coin rather than one for everyday transaction. I'm not convinced that bitcoin by itself can reduce consumption., |
|
|
|
This is all about section 230, as mentioned repeatedly in that link. Previously companies could be either i) distributors of information, in which case they let everything through unfiltered and have no legal responsibility for any of it, or ii) they could moderate their platforms, in which case they became legally liable for anything that was published on it. 230 is really the basis of the modern social internet, in that it allowed moderation without acceptance of legal responsibility. So what does he hope to achieve here? There's no way that totally unmoderated content is acceptable; that would allow loads of truly horrific and illegal stuff through. But if he doesn't want moderation, what's the alternative? |
|
|
|
If it's about exploring and then gathering valuable metals, there are many unexplored places on earth. It will still be more feasible to dig here if you calculate the costs.
I'm not sure. the investment bank Goldman Sachs has reassured its clients about the financial benefits of investing in asteroid-mining companies. “The psychological barrier to mining asteroids is high, the actual financial and technological barriers are far lower,” it said in a report published last year. A Caltech study put the cost of an asteroid-mining mission at $2.6bn – perhaps not surprisingly the same estimated cost of NASA’s erstwhile ARM. It might sound a lot, but a rare-earth-metal mine has comparable set-up costs of up to $1bn and a football-field-sized asteroid could contain as much as $50bn of platinum https://physicsworld.com/a/the-asteroid-trillionaires/Asteroid mining could in theory be hugely lucrative. Of course another effect is if the supply of, say, that perennial safe-haven favourite gold increases dramatically, then that does make the fixed supply of bitcoin increasingly appealing from an investment perspective  |
|
|
|
Italy's economy (at 10x the size of Greece's economy) has the weight to crush the Euro if it collapses. That's a much bigger concern than a marginal increase to the the EU's debt ceiling.
Yes, Italy is a huge concern. It's the same old narrative in the EU - whether true or not - of the 'responsible north' bailing out the 'profligate south'. This pandemic has hit Italy and Spain harder than most, and these two countries get a lot of income from tourism, which is obviously one of the worst-hit industries. But all of Europe is hurting economically. Tension is increasing, the question is whether it will increase so far that the EU collapses. |
|
|
|
|
The response to the crisis has once again thrown the inadequacies of the fiat system into sharp focus. In theory it should give a huge boost to bitcoin, but in practice we are probably not there yet. Bitcoin is still seen as a speculative asset rather than a rock-solid safe-haven during times of economic turmoil.
But economies are going to continue to suffer, the 'new normal' of social distancing is going to be with us for some time, many businesses are going to either fail or get further emergency payouts. And whole industries remain in trouble - restaurants for example, many have said that a social distancing seating plan is going to reduce customer numbers to such an extent that they will have difficulty breaking even, let alone running a profit. Arguably the best way out of this is massive spending on a green economy. Austerity - in the UK at least - is not really an option, services have been trimmed back so far over the last decade that there is nothing more to cut.
However governments respond, the case for bitcoin will continue to grow as a result of this pandemic.
|
|
|
|
|
#2 is morally preferable.
You have rights in a society, but you also have responsibilities - not least to ensure you don't endanger the well-being of your fellow citizens.
If the old man is unwilling to accept his responsibilities, then he should forfeit the rights associated with them.
Not sure on the wider point about accelerationism though. A 'move fast and break things' attitude can cause huge problems when applied to a society.
|
|
|
|
 Not sure of the relevance of this. From your link: The statistic shows the total population in the United Kingdom from 2014 to 2018, with projections up until 2024. ... so it's not a crystal ball, it's a (mathematical) projection. Why are you interested in 2024? In the charts I shared 'Apr 24' simply means 24th day of April, not the year 2024. Red line is this year, grey line average of recent years. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
