This is a healthy makeup we got in this here forum, that's for sure. I'm beginning now to use proudhon and sgbett's predictions as my worst-case scenario settings -- and actually am not too unhappy with that (with perhaps the difference being I'm only using the 2021 timeframe as I'd really like to diverge farther in '22).

And that's credit to you OP;) When did you say 19/12k again?

Bitcoin doesn't need China... China on the other hand does need bitcoin (as does the rest of the world) and will realize in time that this move to drive out crypto from the country is a mistake.

I don't know much, but ill bite for now.


Do you have any plausible reason to reduce bitcoin on-chain block size limit?

Why would people who already use altcoin (such as zCash and Monero) moving back to Bitcoin sidechain, especially when their coin have lots of user and the sidechain barely have any user?

By moving the problem to sidechain.

This has nothing to do with technical analysis but with one's own trading strategy and personal risk tolerance. However, 5% is far too high even for very risk-averse traders, as the capital would be used up after 20 failed trades.

Personally, I trade with a maximum of 1%, but for such trades, many (of my) indicators must point in the same direction, which is very rare.

"Money market funds and treasury markets can lose liquidity in times of stress," Williams added. "Demand for the US dollar in paper currency is growing."

In this case, Phoenix Wallet (or more precisely ACINQ) initiates the payment from their node rather than route it from you. They expect you to pay them back once the channel between you and them has become active. How can they trust you? Well, you are using their software which was programmed to do that automatically.


Under normal circumstances, it would not be possible. If you set up your own node then it's impossible for someone to open a channel to you without a valid on-chain transaction. In fact, by default, that transactions needs to have either 1 or 3 confirmations (it depends on the implementation) before the channel becomes active.

I can confirm this has happened to me, but it's because channel opening in Phoenix Wallet is custodial, and since it only connects to their own node (which they trust), they're not risking anything and I can already make transactions before the on-chain transaction is confirmed.

It's true. But even though I didn't expect it, it makes sense, I don't think it's a terrible thing in this case.
See Opinions on Phoenix Wallet? (and later posts).

To answer TangentC's post: to the rest of the LN-network is doesn't matter that my transaction isn't confirmed yet. My channel is with a node, and that node has confirmed channels to the rest of the world. So as far as the rest of the world is concerned, they don't risk any funds by accepting my transaction.
Opening a channel in Phoenix Wallet is custodial, which means I trusted the wallet with my money already. It's a smart way of making channel opening more user friendly when on-chain fees rise.

you mention words like trust and signed.

there are LN walets out their that create channels before a bitcoin transaction is confirmed and locked
 
there are probably wallets that are using elthree where the channels 'collateral' are not bitcoin transactions

but just purely a balance authorised by a factory where users have to request that balance to be converted to a bitcoin if they ever want to truly exit LN

Maybe the officiation of being a legal tender adds some legitimacy to the status of bitcoin as a currency and an asset. This bandwagon would probably get much bigger if El Salvador can pull off all the things that they are announcing to the world.

Long story short: To find entry and exit points

when you are at a bar. and to do a favour for a friend.. you and the friend agree on an IOU.
however its an IOU and remains an IOU until its actually 'paid up' and settled..

Hello

My short things aboute Crypto Central Banks

Many bitcoin maximalists live in the fantasies of an idealistic theory of bitcoin as a world currency.
But apparently from the lack of education and less understanding of the general structure of the economy, they do not notice how other crypto-currencies become real world digital currencies, and not just means of accumulation and speculation. And it's not just about the technology of long and expensive BTC transactions, the lack of smart contracts, etc.

ETH and BNB are, unlike BTC, realy already used to pay for goods and services, and not only for goods and services in DeFi and NFT, but also in the real world.
And this happens due to the presence in them of the monetary policy inherent in the fiat currencies of the real world, which makes them convenient in terms of the speed of operations, commissions, accrued interest on the deposit ...

Establishing a Crypto Central Banks in the person of CZ or Vitalik (sometimes taking from account the DAO vote, but sometimes despite the misconceptions of mass miners), the price of the commission for the operation, the block speed (by updating the code in the ETH or, for example, limiting the 21 nodes in BNB), this is a standard function of managing economic processes.

The burning or add printing of coins is also a standard function of managing the money supply, and the % rate for staking is practically the same as the refinancing rate of the classical Central Bank, which stimulates the increase in staking deposits during the period of growth of the % staking rate, or vice when % less is stimulates  investing coins in the "means of production" of other projects, for example, on the Binance Launchpad.


The presence of such basic mechanisms for managing monetary policy as an increase or decrease in the money supply and the refinancing (staking) rate, in conjunction with other less popular mechanisms, in the real TOP currencies of crypto-economy, once again confirms the fallacy of the idealistic theory about Bitcoin as a single world currency (which is practically does not take part in the mechanisms of mass payment for goods / services), and retains the value of Bitcoin only as crypto-gold.

..
as for the others debating the concept of IOU
its very simple.
a HTLC is not a bitcoin broadcastable tx.
the denominations will not be understood by bitcoin.
when travelling through routes its not measured in satoshis.

also
if i wrote you a raw tx that was broadcastable. i signed it.. but.. i have yet to broadcast it and thus its not a confirmed transaction on the blockchain.. can you claim the funds are yours now free and clear settled. or that you are possibly waiting and hoping for funds you now think i owe you..
the answer is. your still stuck at the IOU stage until its actually confirmed on the blockchain.

Uh yea, well, have you bought btc while it was got dump to $29,000 , OP? or are you still waiting the bigger dip then buy?

I really like this part. Imagine your friends or your family saying this to you later 

To be fair people don't have to buy "every" dip and I dare say they can't. How much "extra money" do people have anyways? Keep in mind that most people don't day-trade so they don't always have the cash.
Usually you'll take advantage of a couple of big dips and make your purchase before running out of money to put into bitcoin and should be happy about it even if "better" opportunities appear afterwards. With that said anything from $30k to $40k is THE dip to buy in.