Of course, this is good for Bitcoin.
The economic crisis of any country causes the people of that country to invest more.
But the only problem is that if this is illegal in a country, it means investing with too much risk.
In what world does economic crisis stimulate investment? This has never ever happened, because in times of crisis people save whatever money they have, so they tend to actually dump their investments, especially investments on the risky side. They might put their money in safe haven assets, but Bitcoin is not a safe haven. |
|
|
|
The company aims to make your teeth really clean by applying not only blockchain technology, but also facial recognition, sensors, and big data.
That's exactly what we need - more facial recognition and big data. Just put it into every single aspect of our lives, who needs privacy anyway. And since blockchain is just a database, just think for a moment how stupid it sounds - "The company aims to make your teeth really clean by applying not only a database". It's like "solving world hunger with NoSQL" or "ending crime with Javascript". I don't get how can companies treat blockchain seriously if this field is full of crap like this project. |
|
|
|
Let's test something
Nice try, but there are many security measures already in place to prevent XSS attacks.  I want to build smth with your API, do you escape HTML in the posts provided by it? Though it shouldn't matter that much, cause I should be escaping it anyway. Plus the forum escapes it too, so it should be pretty safe to use the provided HTML to display posts. Still I would like to test it more, but I'm afraid to trigger some sort of forum's automatic response if I'll just paste a ton of XSS payloads here. |
|
|
|
What can you make of this specially coming from Elon? Another sign bullish sign?
And it could possibly that some Tesla employees are already into bitcoin. It's going to be interesting is this one famous Bitcoin ATM will attract people to used Bitcoin ATM's across the US.
Why do you think that it's coming from Elon Musk? Do you think he personally approved it or ordered it? I highly doubt that. Yes, he seem to be a bit positive about Bitcoin, but he's no a Bitcoin hyperbull or a real fan of the technology. I think this is pretty insignificant news, especially compared to something like Square's 50M investment. Wake me up when Tesla starts hodling Bitcoin, or they integrate Bitcoin into their products or something like that. |
|
|
|
I think crypto is superior because the latter person still can keep the crypto in their wallet, while the former person get wipe out and left with debt worth of a student loan.
It's irrelevant if you trade crypto or stocks, you get liquidated when you trade with margin and the market goes in opposite direction. Stocks are even more safe than crypto in some scenarios, for example if a company gets shut down, the holders of its stock are entitled to some compensation, while with crypto if a coin dies, holders are left with nothing. Plus the stock market is regulated so there's less manipulation. |
|
|
|
|
I think from a point of view of a mining farm owner, it's not that beneficial to join a cartel, you'll have no idea what the leaders of this cartel doing, they could be even doing something against Bitcoin's interests, that would negatively affect the miner in the long run. And what are the benefits? Is this cartel supposed to pay the participants a part of some profit? But it's not even guaranteed to make any.
A cartel like that could have been possible in the early days, if let's say Bitmain decided to mine with all their hardware instead of selling it, but they would also have no benefits from it because Bitcoin wasn't adopted enough.
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is valuable because of the halvenings/fixed supply, so they are not harming miners. It may look like it, but on a bigger perspective without halvenings we could have had less hashrate and less security. Only time will tell which model - inflationary with infinite block reward, or the eventual state where block rewards come solely from transaction fees, is better for network security. I'm personally not too worried, cause it will take a lot time to get there, and if needed, Bitcoin community might agree to change the rules.
|
|
|
|
|
First, SHA-256 isn't under big threat from quantum computers, they might be better at finding collisions, but not dramatically better like they are with cracking ECDSA. Also it's a very common misconception to think that you need a quantum computer to defend from quantum computers, in fact all you need is the right algorithm. Quantum computers aren't good because they are faster than classical computers, they just have certain properties that make them excel at certain specific things.
There's really no reason to worry about it, the whole world will be changing to post-quantum cryptography when/if the time will come, because it concerns everything, not just Bitcoin. Your bank account and payment cards, your browser, military communications, etc. If a powerful quantum computer was created tomorrow, we'd have far bigger problems than Bitcoin getting hacked.
|
|
|
|
|
The good ol' "this is good for Bitcoin". I think 10 years of Bitcoin history is enough to learn that local financial crisis, of whatever nature it is, isn't causing any noticeable Bitcoin adoption. We have seen Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Argentina and other countries seeing problems with their economy and national currency, and it was always presented as an opportunity for Bitcoin, and then nothing came out of it.
|
|
|
|
Absolutely. I would imagine there are a fair few people who are interested for working for crypto companies for the same reason a fair few people here are interested in bitcoin in the first place - being sick of the failure of traditional monetary systems, and how they only work to enrich themselves at the expense of everybody else. Perhaps they saw a career in crypto as an opportunity to help address injustice and inequality. And then they see Coinbase partner with Hacker Team (who have already been selling their software to dictators and war criminals), and working with the US government, and leasing their products to the FBI/CIA/DEA/IRS, and so on. And they see Coinbase slowly turn in to the very thing they got a career in crypto to try to help combat.
Not surprised 5% of their workforce have taken the opportunity to leave. I imagine that if unemployment wasn't at its highest in 80 years, that 5% figure would be far higher.
That incident is what I kept in mind when I was writing my post, and if this policy was created shortly after that, it would be pretty easy to draw connections. But on the other hand elections are really close right now, so maybe this was the cause of it? But either way, for whatever reason this rule is installed now, it can be used as I described in the future, and I think the chance of it isn't that low, considering how immoral Coinbase has always been. |
|
|
|
Probably this: https://news.bitcoin.com/square-bitcoin-50-million/$50 million being invested into Bitcoin. I think that is enough already to make the price of Bitcoin to go up and include all of the other investors who bought it too. Overall, sudden rise in Bitcoin's price isn't the thing that I would be surprised with because it happened many many many many times already. If Bitcoin will stay above $11,000 then there is a chance that it will go higher and will try to reach the $12,000 price or it will remain sideways at around the $11,000 and the $12,000. There's so many crypto news sites out there, of course most of them are crappy, but at least they aren't as directly scammy and bitcoin.com. Please, avoid linking to it without necessity, and always use an alternative source. I doubt that this was caused by the Square's buying, it's already very old news, and we already saw market reaction to it. Probably there's no big reason this time, with Bitcoin not every single movement needs to be backed by some event. |
|
|
|
|
Frankly, we don't know the exact situation at Coinbase and what caused this decision. It's one thing if there's a lot of political debates that distract employees from work and cause tension, but this could have also be done to silence any criticism and disagreement over the company's actions. If in the future Coinbase will get caught providing their services to some dictators, rogue nations, war criminals, etc. - this no-politics rule can be used to prevent employees from protesting.
|
|
|
|
|
This just sounds like a really weak attempt at trolling. If you don't want Bitcoin because it's not approved by government or Warren Buffet, then Bitcoin is not for you. Bitcoin was created to give people control over their money, that should be enough reason to use it if you find this feature appealing.
|
|
|
|
Was the way I wrote known for years? I thought they made their packages open source.
What do you mean "they made their packages open source"? And cryptographic commitment schemes have been a thing for nearly as long as modern cryptography exists, this is just an example of a practical application of this. This is a fairly simple thing, so there's even no need to start an open-source project for that, any programmers with a little bit of experience could implement it in a few hours. Also crypto casinos, especially lotteries, sometimes use things like Bitcoin block hashes as a source of randomness, because in case of a lottery it's not enough to just commit your numbers, a casino could simply register as a player, and since they know the results beforehand, they would create a fake winning for themselves and steal all the bets that aren't winning. |
|
|
|
1% seems both tiny and huge at the same time. I don't think many companies have done similar with gold or something like that recently...
Doesn't seem very small to me, I think a big company commiting 1% of its assets to a risky and volatile one isn't something that happens often. IMO that's how it should be - you put small part of your portfolio in Bitcoin, so if it moons, you'll get a decent profit, but if it fails it won't ruin you. Unfortunately, I myself don't follow this strategy and keep having Bitcoin as a majority of my holdings, which might be a horrible decision or a fantastic decision, with very little chance for in-between. |
|
|
|
|
Call me a cynic, but I don't believe anyone of the admins would bother doing this for a jr. member with no established reputation, as far as I'm aware so far the name change was only done for very prominent forum figures. If a new member would request it, I'm sure the admins won't bother to even reply, and you can totally understand that, because if they started doing this, everyone would start requesting it, and they will quickly become overwhelmed with requests.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin itself is too still in beta. These techs will probably never their beta states because they will never become a bug free full version.
There's no such thing as bug free software, except from some Hello World programs. Bitcoin will be out of beta when the devs will feel like there's enough features and solved problems to justify it. Still, Bitcoin's beta status is not the same as beta status of some other software, Bitcoin never had some closed private trials, if we don't count something that Satoshi might have been doing when he was still writing the code; and Bitcoin won't see a relaunch of the network when it will be out of beta. |
|
|
|
I agree with you that bitcoins is a high risk/reward invesmtent similar to stocks, but I don't see such a high correlation with stocks like you. If we would have a big crash I think people would dumb stocks and try to invest into cash items, Bitcoins for me is similar to cash so I think there should be a lot of people trying to switch out of stocks into bitcoins.
Of course from a point of view of a bitcoiner Bitcoin is the best thing ever, it's digital gold/cash/store of value/hedge/best payment method and will go to the moon no matter what, but mainstream investors don't view Bitcoin as such, they think it's an extremely volatile asset that can't be analyzed with any methods, it's just purely speculative market, so few people would buy it at the times of a crisis, when people are looking for some certainty. |
|
|
|
|
This system, known as Provably Fair, has been known for years, and it probably greatly contributed to the growth of crypto gambling industry, since it solved the problem of trusting in the fairness of the game. But it didn't solve trust completely, a casino can still make an exit scam, they can refuse to payout the winnings, and this cryptographic commitment scheme doesn't work for investors, which means that casinos could be theoretically defrauding them.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
