I wouldn't call Bitcoin a commodity, commodities are meant to be consumable, and Bitcoin is obviously not. Collectibles are valuable because of their extreme rarity, and Bitcoin is not that rare - up to 21 million coins, and 100 million times more satoshis. I don't think that Bitcoin is all that different from fiat money - they are both valuable because people believe in their value, while inherently they have no uses beyond monetary. The key difference is that fiat's supply is created in a centralized way, and now with the shift towards digital payments, the payments are also processed in a centralized way too.
|
|
|
It started off as a project that would enable the regular guy with a modest pc to mine BTC, now you need a huge farm to be able to mine effectively.
Satoshi himself admitted that mining would eventually be done by big mining farms. Heavily decentralized mining was never a major goal of Bitcoin's protocol. Bitcoin is getting further and further away from the guy in the street, and is now some rich hedgefunds 1% elite plaything.
How it's their plaything? They don't control the price or the network, they are just investors like the others. Bitcoin does not prohibit "the elites" from owning it. What is the future of Bitcoin in your view, will it render itself useless and be taken over/killed by a better suited cryptoproject, or are we stuck with it??
How can it be replaced by any altcoin if those altcoins have even less adoption?
|
|
|
Banning non-custodial wallets is the same as the government putting a ban on holding your paper money in your own wallet/pocket. ![Angry](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/angry.gif) I guess that the Federal Reserve wants the cryptocurrencies to be treated as financial assets only,not as real currencies.That's why they want all the coins to be held on licensed crypto exchange platforms,that have KYC verification policies. The whole purpose is to have more control and more tax revenue. Every government implements restrictions on operations with cash, and each year they make them tighter and tighter. Sooner or later they will do the same with Bitcoin, and they aren't interested in trying to stop you from installing Bitcoin clients or anything like that, they want to make it hard to spend Bitcoin without doing KYC or explaining the source of funds in some cases. They might tell exchanges and other services to threat mixed coins as suspicious, and demand customers to show their transactions before mixing and freeze their funds if they refuse.
|
|
|
Isn't this what bip38 was for? Anything password protected is as strong as the password and your ability to recall it.
If you've got a good password and can recall it well/know where it's written then yes - also you light want to note down the algorithm used to encrypt it as it might not be a cross platform thing - although bip38 ciphertext is represented by an initial U. .
I'd choose password-protected seed over a password-protected QR code, because QR codes might have lower tolerance to data loss than the seed phrases, even with QR code's error correction. With seed words, you can still bruteforce your phrase if you lost a few words, and a loss of individual letters is not a problem, because it's easy to get the words from them. With QR codes, if there's too much damage, your key will be impossible to recover.
|
|
|
This post of mine deserves at least one merit. Because I have tried to explain in the replay of this post how people can be in danger of using the same password everywhere without knowing it. I advise everyone not to use the same password everywhere. I have also tried to explain what kind of danger it can be. Lastly I also said that high knowledge helps people in many ways, and low knowledge puts people in danger. So this post of mine deserves at least one merit.
Your post fails to explain how password reuse hurts users, you only make a general statement that "it helps scammers". And your advice of using uppercase letters and numbers is just misleading, those things don't improve security by as much as you'd think. 1. Why do they have to explain to you that their post deserve merit, can't you please judge them objectively for their post which is totally deserved ?
Making an explanation would encourage them to choose their posts more carefully, and it's also a chance to earn additional merit for the explanation itself, if they can demonstrate that they understand what makes a post valuable. 2. When a newbie participate in this thread and they ask you to give them some merit on a post they think is quality then the request can be considered begging for merit. Beg for merit might be the reason someone has get a negative trust and their profile is also being ignored by the user.
It's only begging if it's unsolicited. Merit giveaways/contests/etc. is a normal practice on this forum. Personally, I would not differentiate between opening a new topic and responding to a post in an existing one - if the post is good, it doesn't matter in which context it is created.
Newbies seem to interpret "making helptful posts" as "creating guide topics", and I want to show them that you can earn merit by just participating in discussions.
|
|
|
This current bull market is driven by institutional investors, and whomever is in charge of deciding which assets to buy over there is most likely not a millenial. Millenials are highly represented among the retail investors, but Gen X shouldn't be underestimated - they are also quite tech savvy and have more money than millenials. The future of bitcoin is in the hands of Millennials who in turn will pass it on to the next generations.
The future of Bitcoin is in everyone's hands, and I also don't think that millenials have some mission to teach younger people about Bitcoin - they could easily discover it on their own.
|
|
|
The media most often does what the government tells them to do. This is why many media outlets either ignore bitcoin or prohibit it to some extent.
No one told them to ban posts about Bitcoin, they did it on their own because of so many Bitcoin and crypto-related scams - doublers, cloud mining, ICO, etc. They can't dispatch real humans to check these posts, so they use algorithms to match keywords and automatically delete these posts. Maybe in the future they will train some AI models to separate scams from legitimate posts, because blanket banning everything is hurting their business.
|
|
|
No asset can rise infinitely, or even just for long periods of time, and stock to flow model does not tell us when it will stop, in fact it tells that every halving is as important as the previous ones, while actually we'll have such low reward in just few decades that it will stop being a major factor for the price.
There's is a good connection between bull markets and halvenings so far, but maybe some other model that takes it into account could make a better long-term prediction than S2F.
|
|
|
What would I like to say? Respond more carefully to topics created by newbies. Sometimes they no longer appear on the forum after creating topics. And if plagiarism is detected, the risk of deleting the entire topic is possible.
There's nothing scary about getting your posts deleted together with the topic, unless you are counting your every post for your signature campaign. In any case, if you want to minimize such events, it's not enough to just becareful of newbie OPs, you should get a sense if a new topic might get deleted or not. Generally topics get deleted if they are obviously worthless, like some questions that get asked every day, if they are offtopic or spam (spam usually contains links).
|
|
|
I saw similar charts a few years ago, and a lot of people back then tried to argue that volatility isn't going down and that it's actually increasing, but now it's even more clear that it's not true, and of course it makes sense that as we get more volume, and the novelty factor disappears, the volatility is bound to go down. Even if this bull market will make volatility increase, this volatility won't be as big as that of the previous cycles, so the trend is correct.
But it seems like if you extrapolate the line, the volaility will long-term stabilize at some level, like 10-15%, which also makes sense, because there's no price stabilizers like with fiat currency.
|
|
|
If I had millions of dollars worth of coins, I'd keep them in 5-10 wallets of different types - hardware wallets, physical wallets (steel plates), maybe one or two custodial wallets. I'd keep a few wallets at my home, and a few wallets in a deposit box, and I'd memorize at least one seed on top of storing it with any other methods. I would also back up at least one seed in cloud storage, encrypting it with a very strong password beforehand. With this setup, I would only lose a portion of my coins in worst case scenario and never lose all coins. I'd keep the record of all my wallets in an encrypted file and once in a few months I'd check all these wallets.
|
|
|
Now with the way things are going, don't you think the earlier the better we start educating people about cryptocurrencies??
I was in opportune to speak with most of colleague in city where I m telling them about usefulness of bitcoin many other currencies today they are happy, I m also introduce them how to make use of binance to trade today I m being compensated with some Satoshi as an appreciation.
Now, if I don't do that do you think I can be valued to that extent? So no effort are being wasted so many are eager to learn based on other's result.
I talk about blockchain, which you mentioned in your post, and now you talk about cryptocurrency. These are two very different things. Blockchain is a programming pattern, cryptocurrency is a system that uses this pattern. It's okay to talk to broad audience about Bitcoin, as it's the only cryptocurrency worth attention, but you shouldn't spend too much time talking about blockchain - this knowledge is only needed for programmers who want to be blockchain developers, and they will learn it somewhere else.
|
|
|
That's not true. Most computer are not designed to be resistant against side-channel attacks be it timing attacks, leakage of electromagnetic radiation, power analysis during the signing of txs etc etc.
It will undoubtedly be cheaper than a hardware wallet but given that the information cannot be stored in a secure chip, it's fairly easy to at least obtain the encrypted copy of the wallet. Most hardware wallets have a feature which will wipe the wallets after too many tries and the ColdCard that I've gotten offers a feature with duress wallets to provide plausible deniability.
Setting up an air-gapped cold storage is not difficulty or requires any special skills but keeping it anywhere near to the security level of hardware wallets could be fairly hard.
How likely is an average user to get attacked through side channels, which requires some physical access and equpment only available to security services and maybe some top-level criminals? And it's not like hardware wallets are unhackable, there has been many reports of proof-of-concept attacks on them, and all these things with sidechannels actually apply to hardware wallets too.
|
|
|
What a hardware wallet does is isolating your private key from unsecure environment that might have malware. In your example you have already created a Bitcoin wallet in an unsecure environment, and there are some things that could go wrong - you could have downloaded a fake wallet, or a malware could have stolen your new wallet file/seed. Then, even if you will delete a wallet file, you'd still need to use it later, and when you'll do so, you will again be exposed to risk. Hardware wallet allows you to send transactions without those risk. There's nothing that can be compared to a hardware wallet. They are designed with security in mind. Their focus is on eliminating the possible attack vectors through both physical and non-physical means. Most hardware wallets has a security chips which is used to harden the device against bruteforce attack and are often designed to reduce the number of possible sidechannel attacks. Removing the software wallet and wiping the device does not mean anything if the malware was already on your device when you were generating the keys. They can and will be compromised regardless.
Having your own cold storage setup with an old computer or other device is very close to a hardware wallet, maybe sometimes even better. It's a bit harder to setup and use, but it's not rocket science, any advanced user will be able to do it, and it could be cheaper than a hardware wallet, as people upgrade their computers from time to time, so they probably have a spare computer quite often.
|
|
|
Why would people need to know about blockchain? Especially if they are from a rural area. Have you heard about someone going from village to village and talk about MySQL and MongoDB? Even if blockchain was useful, there's no need for regular people to understand it, just like people don't know how Internet works or how planes fly, but they still use them without problems. But blockchain actually isn't that useful, cryptocurrency is the only successful application, and maybe the last.
|
|
|
Your story highlights one interesting fact - a first negative experience can often make people quit for good, and in crypto negative experiences are waiting around every corner - scams, hacks, understanding difficulties, accidental loss of funds, etc. This is one of the reasons why adoption is slow - not only some people quit crypto after trying, they probably share their story with friends and discourage them from entering crypto too.
|
|
|
1. Node data could be inaccurate, as different sites give different estimates
2. Node count only means that a country might have more nodes than the other, it doesn't necessarily mean that there's more adoption.
3. Node counts for US and Germany are very close, so this doesn't mean that Germany is much more important than the US.
For point 2, I would say that the quality of Internet is better in Europe, it's faster and cheaper than in US, so maybe it's easier to run nodes there, so more people choose to.
|
|
|
First they tried to stop Bitcoin and crypto when they failed miserably despite all those threats now they are planning to benefit through crypto by taxing on crypto but it won't be possible to tax those who use DEX as government will not have any data about users due to anonymousity, but CEX users are exposed to danger of being reprimanded by government and hounded with taxes. Even this time regulators and government will fail on their unrealistic quench of greed.
DEX won't allow anyone to avoid regulations, they are using bank transactions or other centralized methods for the fiat side, and they report everything to the regulators. So, if you sell too much Bitcoin, which can be as little as a few thousand dollars, tax officials will be very interested where do the money come from and why you haven't paid tax on them. Governments take tax evasion very seriously, after all, they won't be able to exist without taxes, so don't think there's some simple method to fool them by using crypto.
|
|
|
This isn't the first time it is reported that G7 will discuss crypto, so far nothing big came out of it. Maybe this time will be different, or maybe it won't. Per speculation, the regulation would essentially forbid users from utilizing personal crypto wallets outside of regulated exchanges. Isn't it strange that after Bitcoin's price skyrocketed, we started hearing more of FUD "rumors" that crypto wallets will be banned/restricted/ I'm pretty sure nothing will come out of it, because it's almost impossible to demand from exchanges to do verification of their user's wallet, and a law that is hard to enforce will only create more headache for everyone, including the government.
|
|
|
No one is going to give any coins to an anonymous guy thousands of kilometers away, that's just a recipe for a scam. In general, using Bitcoin for investing in business, especially internationally, is a very bad idea, there's zero investor protection, zero regulation, and authorities will be unwilling or unable to help the investor in case of a scam.
You should keep trying with traditional finance, if your idea is good, someone will notice it. Maybe reduce your scale to increase your chances, and then expand your business later.
|
|
|
|