Imho for current use cases eth was valued too high anyway, but this doesn't mean it would be in the future.

So is this purely value speculation or are you saying that this is a bad thing or coin should be only valued by the cost for mining it? Regardless for the actual use case and game theory of utilizing the tokenimics for it?

Are you taking into account their whole gaming theory of their tokenomics, EIP-1559 and incentivizing stakers not to sell but accumulate their stack? I mean you are comparing it wo something completely different in the first place.

Comparing ETH to BTC is kinda pointless and BTC probably will end up getting banned after it hits $100k for the same exact reason you are saying it has store of value, and that reason is PoW.

And before you say that it can't be banned and throw in talks from Antonopoulos or any other libertarian talk assuming governments can't fight it or about the decentralized nature of it then sure, you can mine it forever with your laptop and p2p trade it with people. But CEXes can, and without CEXes the, lack of liquidity itself would drop harder then ever, and you will go back to P2P trading.

And lets say by some miracle it stays alive and liquidity against other cryptos would be stilll good and there would be a good technique to DeX it to other cryptos. FATF travel rule and other AML regulations would make sure that these old money washing techniques will be irrelevant and game left for very few people who can play the system.

And if you are hoping that CEXes would fight regulators: https://twitter.com/paddi_hansen/status/1569973440496410625

So good luck for people with that store of value there.

When you are getting 500% more tokens in a year, you aren't "staking" in a sense it would make sense. It's just an incentive not to sell because toin loses value if it doesn't stake with a growing supply, so it won't most likely be listed in any cex that won't agree to pay the staked value.



This is just a lie, made up nmber and highly illegal for any legit project to claim something like this and obviously all of this is a HUGE red flag.

And that waste is going to be limited too soon. They are already shutting down some advertisement light boards at night in here. Problem here is that PoW could be pointless way to prove anything after PoS takes over the markets.

If there would be a solution to make some real life industry that consumes ton of energy (let's say aeroplanes) to consume only fraction of that energy, it would be soon mandatory to use that solution.

About bitcoin being threat to governments... Not as big of a threat people think. They can easily shut down all cex:es trying to use it if they would want. P2P trading against fiat money after that would be a fraction of the volume. Era of using pseudonymous accounts to shield against regulators is over.

This is what's happening next -> https://twitter.com/paddi_hansen/status/1569973440496410625

Since you are agreeing with amishmanish, could you answer how is it making things less decentralized?

I am referring to my point in here -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5413072.msg60919826#msg60919826

PoW was the best idea at the time, ideas have been evolved a lot since. Still, none of your arguments about centralization make any sense to me as they would apply to PoW too.
How are whales any different from rig farms other then they are actually hodling eth and not dumping it?

I'll try to summarize it since i was a fan for a long time. Still am. It's basically a token by bitfinex, i can't remember if they collect a funding to recover from the hack or something but basically they are constantly burning it by buying it from the market at market price with some % of bitfinex profits if i recall correctly.

Difference between Binance BNB burning and bitfinex UNU SED LEO (LEO) is that while Binance burns 50% of the tokens, Bitfinex is trying to burn 100% of LEO.
Now best thing in this is that while they are not obviously burning "everything" as people aren't selling everything to them, then the price target can be ANYTHING, because supply drops all the time while people sell and people can decide to set their sell orders anywhere and there's always some buying power left as long as bitfinex is operational.

Here are the burn stats: https://leo.bitfinex.com/

It has slowly been rising and while ago they bounced as it reads in the white paper that if they would recover the stolen btc they would use them to buy back the tokens. And in last february they caught the hackers

-> https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/two-arrested-alleged-conspiracy-launder-45-billion-stolen-cryptocurrency

Now imagine if US justice system decides to give them back the stolen btc. They would be legally obligated to use all of it for buying the token from the market. That would mean historically most gains that one token has made in a short time.

Edit: Even though the price target could technically eventually be $10M per coin depending how fast they get to burn it. I don't think it would be a instant speculative moonshot without recovered funds, but a slow rise.

Disclaimer: I've never heard about fameex that second poster is advertising with op and i wouldn't recommend using it to buy.

Let's see, "cheap"?

* We don't know the valuation. Quick look at tokenomics and i can't make sense of the marketcap.
* We can't ask on their telegram channel as they have currently closed it for messaging which is a red flag
* We don't know the original investor price,
* Max supply is unlimited (with increasing difficulty), which isn't bad but still as i don't have a clue even about the circulating supply, it makes difficult to count anything.

This could be hyped for a while sure, but i am sensing that movement will easy to hack and real "miners" will be discouraged when some people are making money without moving at all. But without marketcap it's really hard to tell if this is has potential to go up and how much.

Also, we don't have a clue if they are selling the tracking data to third party.

I am starting to doubt that it will happen. Google has obviously chosen the PoS side and pr for promoting PoW now would be just bad. I am starting to feel more and more that there will be immense pressure against PoW based coins soon. Especially against those that consume too much electricity. At this point, i don't mind. I have zero bitcoins left and i don't believe that it can sustain itself against governments.

Don't you think that this is main issue with it? Instead of making a project and hoping you find a smart contract solution that has been a holy grail of securities that everyone is trying to crack seems kind of a distant dream. It's a major problem that can't be easily solved as you need code that doesn't even exist yet. Closest i can think of is Dusk but they are still on testnet phase. I think you have started the development from the wrong end.


Initial rights for anything as a permissionless token holder are shaky at best. You would need whole new approach.

Since 2019, and yes i created it, pinned the message and then instantly forgot i got it for a while as i got bored and eth was too expensive for small transactions to trade nft cards. Later i remembered that i had it and for my surprise it had like a thousand followers, amongst them were bored apes yacht club and others. I decided i would be more active with it when i have time. I still haven't asked for any followers or retweets, or hold fake competitions like others for followers.

Thinking maybe i should.

Privacy and confidentiality of your transactions are very different then using a protocol for evading regulations and using it for money laundering. Privacy can also soon be done also with regulatory compliance.


And how is this not black & white mindset then?


First of all, "could be entering?"
Newsflash, have you googled the FAFT travel rule? Money is already been traced. Old physical cash is disappearing fast and there will be MORE regulations and more automation for tracing it, not less. Funny enough reasons are transparency and government fund auditability too. There are 2 sides still on this, while we need 1. confidentiality on transactions 2. we need auditability for those transactions for weeding out criminal use cases.

Crypto however is as "private" or pseudonymous as it's always been. Trading it against fiat money however is where you need to explain where you got that crypto from and pay taxes for it.

Dreaming about going back as anon as physical cash days is a pipe dream. We live in a different world and there's a good reason for that. Anonymous physical coinage wasn't a good idea. It was just best we had at the time.


If we had that kind of government, problem wouldn't be in tracking crypto transactions.

Yeah, Crypto has existed what, 13 years now? And during that time most of the developed coins and exchanges have been fallen. Only few survived so there's no telling what happens in next 10 years or if cryptos are a thing in 50 years. They could be replaced with totally different and more elegant solution we haven't thought about.

100 years is a marketing gimmick. Most likely it will be rugged in a week.

Sure, but in ways we can't predict yet. There has to happen a lot in terms of intuitive graphic interfaces. Even people who know about cryptos have to study new technologies, but it needs to be way more intuitive system then we have now. Some how coded in so people don't need to care about learning and keep the focus on collecting of what ever it will be like then. Because surely collectables will be just a small part of the surface of what will happen.

Article doesn't say if it's going to be inside binance or are they using it for personal wallets for connecting id to previously pseudonymous wallets. If the latter i understand the need for it but the lack of privacy in bnb makes me feel uncomfortable about how exactly data is used and where is it used. In fact i see potentially dangerous scenes happening depending how they plan to build this system. I am assuming there's smart people in charge that have considered the confidential data angle already.

If PoS would fail as you predict, that "backup" wouldn't be worth anything anyway because anything that eth devs has even touched would come crashing down. Also that "higher energy cost, higher prices" -argument isn't that solid when energy cost is too high, govenrments would step in and make all eth pow fiat pair trading illegal. I am assuming that's what's happening to bitcoin soon when ever the energy for it gets too high and officials can't look another way anymore.

You do you. My personal view is that TRX is like toy version of ETH and not to be taken seriously. But for sure there's money to be made with toys and shitcoins too. But if you compare Ex Tron founder and let's say ETH founder, you pick up pretty fast who is the smart one in ths comparison. Justin Sun doesn't come even close. Also buying BitTorrent didn't make any sense what so ever and speaks for itself how things were handled.

They should make KING based meme tokens now, they might have a longer lifespan. But i am hoping we aren't going back to actually trading those (like Trump coin and Putin...)

• King Charles Inu III
• DogeGod Save The King
• All hail the king inu
• Long live King Charles III
• King Charles III
• King Inu

But in all seriousness. anyone can make and name a token and i am betting that Rule 34 already applies to them. If you can imagine it, someone eventually will make a token out of it. No one wants them but everyone wants to talk about the absurdness of them, making them ironically trending.

Bump

That doesn't make any sense to me. Same argument about "empowering few powerful" or taking away decentralization applies to PoW too and even more accurately.
In PoW Only rich few who have actually farms would profit while in PoS holders hold the power, not the miners who can literally dump the market when covering their mining cost. Miners in PoW don't need to care about crypto or holders, they literally sell it for Fiat money, while in PoS ETH holders are being rewarded for hodling/staking.

Obviously bitcoin remains PoW. The whole point of bitcoin is that it has survived the test of time as PoW. If government bans it, it most likely moves to undergroud, where the liquidity would be way worse and trading against Fiat Money pairs would be banned.

Turning to PoS would mean changing radically Bitcoin's code to whole another coin and that seems very unlikely as even smallest changes to code are avoided as they could compromise the code.

But as Bitcoin trading would go to undergroud p2p, it would lose marketcap status by a landslide to others, and it would slowly fade as an old king.

I can't remember them having this even for bitcoin halving. I must have missed it because sure they did. Or they are just hyped to jump cryptos after PoS when public opinion turns favourable against cryptos. Because right now it seems like a lost case to stick with the PoW boat when every country one after another turns against it. You would have to be true crypto-anarchist right now to hold anything but PoS, not that all crypto-anarchists even like PoW