Doch - es kann durchaus Kursrelevant sein, da diese Bitcoin (zum Hedgen!) auch echt gekauft werden müssen.
Das klingt durchaus kursrelevant. Aber sind diese Indexzertifikate nicht immer synthetisch nachgebildet? EDIT: mal den Prospekt angeschaut und ich denke es wird vollständig synthetisch repliziert (wobei man sich fragt mit was für Werten die den wundervoll volatilen bitcoinkurs abbilden?  ) Nee - das geht nicht weil 'unkorreliert mit allen bekannten Assets' - Leonteq MUSS zwingend Bitcoin halten als Hedge ( ok - hier sind wenige Profi- Händler / Riskmanager im Thread - oder?) - genau das ist ja auch Verkaufsargument für alle alternativen Fonds!!!!!!! Es ist klar 'nur' ein Spekulationspapier - aber massentauglicher als die Bitcoin-Börsen derzeit. Es werden nahezu alle Bankkunden damit erreicht. Vontobel war m.M. nach der erste , die Nachfrage IST riesig! EDIT: Das passt ja: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/04/bitcoin-may-become-expected-part-of-a-portfolio-bitstamps-dan-morehead.html |
|
|
|
Könntest du evtl. etwas näher erläutern, wo du uns da hinschicken willst? Ich tue mir immer etwas schwer wahllos unbekannte Links aufzurufen. Ich denke außerdem, ich habe berechtigten Grund zur Annahme, dass ich nicht der einzige bin, der mit "Nexter Tracker für Key-Lose" nichts anfangen kann... braucht auch keiner, außerdem hat auch nichts mit dem Kurs zu tun SORRY Auch sorry. Ja - Bitcoiner brauchen keine Bitcoin Tracker (neues Börsen-Produkt hinter dem Link) Doch - es kann durchaus Kursrelevant sein, da diese Bitcoin (zum Hedgen!) auch echt gekauft werden müssen. |
|
|
|
Es reicht ein Miner, und das kann der Initiator selbst sein. Nebenbei kann man beim Fork beliebige Parameter (Difficulty, Algorithmen etc.) ändern. Wie man an den ganzen Altcoins sehen kann, ist für so einen Forkcoin sowieso nur die Platzierung an einer Börse wichtig.  Wer braucht denn über 1000 verschiedene Altcoins, die meisten werden eh irgendwo untergehen Nee - 'brauchen' tuts keiner, aber anscheinend gibt es dennoch einen Druck / Markt für .... hmm ,was eigentlich ? Vielleicht günstige TXs ? Blocksize ? Skalierung per se ? ok Bitcoin hat auch Schwächen (Skalierbarkeit, Stromverbrauch), da wird es bestimmt keine 1000 andere Währungen brauchen, die dieses Manko beheben Alle die bei bitcoin zu spät gekommen sind versuchen jetzt ihr Glück bei den ganzen ICOs und den Abzockern wo sie angeblich ihre BTC mit 1000% im Jahr vermehren können sollen. Was für ein Schwachsinn. In den nächsten Jahren wird sich zeigen, wieviele der tollen Coins oben mitschwimmen. Im Moment ist BTC noch mit Abstand die Nr. 1, aber das kann sich dann auch ändern. Bin auch Bitcoin-Maximalist - und das Thema sehe ich ganz ganauso - Jeder ICO ist Schwachsinn / scam. Einergie ist DAS Stichwort - wieviel 'verschwenden' wir davon in 'Skalierungsdebatte', Kontrollsicherung und Mining selber ? Nur Mining Energie erscheint mir sinnvoll. Die sollte für alle TXs der Erde ausreichen - wenn mann alles andere (s.o.) einfach weglässt und den Markt- / Technikevolution offen zulässt. |
|
|
|
Es reicht ein Miner, und das kann der Initiator selbst sein. Nebenbei kann man beim Fork beliebige Parameter (Difficulty, Algorithmen etc.) ändern. Wie man an den ganzen Altcoins sehen kann, ist für so einen Forkcoin sowieso nur die Platzierung an einer Börse wichtig. Wer braucht denn über 1000 verschiedene Altcoins, die meisten werden eh irgendwo untergehen Nee - 'brauchen' tuts keiner, aber anscheinend gibt es dennoch einen Druck / Markt für .... hmm ,was eigentlich ? Vielleicht günstige TXs ? Blocksize ? Skalierung per se ? |
|
|
|
Try find out 1) Falcon Privatbank / Switzerland / Zürich 2) Banka LON / Slovenia / Jubiljiana / ( https://www.lon.si/) |
|
|
|
But there is a very likely scenario that Segwit2x will not be supported by the majority of users.
Yes, but the only scenario where Core makes a PoW change is if miners decide to stick to mining segwit2x while the rest of the community uses Bitcoin. If miners choose to not follow the users and don't switch their hashrate back to Bitcoin, then and only then would a PoW change be done. Then I believe that is where we are going. Segwit2x/btc1 might a power grab by Jeff Garzik and his group, with the backing and support of the would be Segwit2x coin's oligarchy that includes the biggest miners and the select merchants of the Silbert Accord. Sorry if anyone disagrees but that is my impression of this whole situation. I think it's a bit a 'search for equilibrium' between the two extremes: Only poor users control (LukeJr) and only big industry control (Google is still not here!!). I'd say bitcoin's game theo approach is perfectly aligned and will find the perfect Nash Equilibrium on the long run. We see that both sides try to make it great - so it should not fail. Extremists might drop out here ( did Google know this in advance?) but this is OK - we all need to learn the lessons bitcoin is teaching us for free. With S2X we approaching next level. If this fails - I'd say bitcoin cash will win. |
|
|
|
|
Naja, tot isses nicht. Evtl wird es tod-gewettet?
Ich sehe zur Zeit nicht, dass sich mit SW, 1x oder LN , 2nd Layer irgendwas bewegt. 2x wird wohl noch zu wenig sein, aber darüber muss sich BScore keine Gedanken mehr machen.
|
|
|
|
|
It is all about central control there. Once they come to the point they cannot close, rather make profit with it, it will traded at usual central (commodity?) excanges. I think their are very close to all that.
|
|
|
|
What will be the name of the SW2x coin?
B2X. You can name it whatever you like. Doesn't matter! There will be hundreds of Bitcoin forks in future and all they'll give you free money drops. Take them and convert into bitcoins! Sure, in theory. But how would you settle if hashpower is left around 5-10% at best case? How would you estimate the correct fee for that long time frames? Any idea what exchanges and their risk managers might tend to do with a legacy coin and no proper settlement (time, fee, support,...) and no replay protection? |
|
|
|
@Carlton Banks: I basically agree, that looks like a doable "roadmap" - only in the case it's necessary. Let's hope it's not, at least not already in November. @hv: all profitable mining tend to centralization
While you are right that there will probably mining operators with large "farms" even if a "truly ASIC-resistant algorithm" is chosen, there are degrees of centralization. It is a difference if you _can_ try your luck with a PC at least in a low-electricity-cost country (or with solar/wind energy) or if you have to invest in hardware that only serves for one purpose. So I basically support the ASIC-resistant (or better: ASIC-unfriendly) approach if it's doable. Klumpen-Risks
I think in English that is called "cluster risk", but maybe I'm wrong (I think you refer to the risk that too many miners/pools are in similar regions with similar risk profiles -> China, Iceland ...) I however do not get your point with the Nash equilibrium ... Ok I 'll try it again: There are two main powers that work against the centralization, which is a classical fix point problem where the attractor is given by the positive returns from mining profits - really, this equation has no varaible in the type of the algo, so you can chose ANY - all efforts to find a better one is net negative! Physics can save you lot of work here, but feel free to learn that hands on. 1. External forces, that destroy any (artificial) order in this universe, better known as entropy or dissipation at work/ fricktion. Here all operational risks fall in, like lump risk (to high centralization, compare big datacenters with no proper backup!), desaster risks ( fire, sonic shocks, war,...) and also regulative risks (China!), technical development risk (some better ASIC or quantum tech), here can be lot more other risks be named! 2. Nash Equilibrium / inner force: Since all bigger players are aware of the real need of a 'decent' decentralization, there is a pressure ( inside of each player) to NOT create a monopoly. Why? -> Reputation risk! Once the other players notice the monoply, they will fold the game and leave! We've seen this with a pool reaching 50% some years ago. Where is that? Gone! I predict that china pools will never really collude, only for the reason to destroy bitcoin ( could be a short time event with potential revival) and go for bitcoin cash? |
|
|
|
|
I just throw in sth very abstract but killing:
For the long run, it does not matter.
Since some legends stated way before me at other places but very true, all profitable mining tend to centralization, no matter what algo you might choose.
The only 2 things will disrupt this centralization are the typical Klumpen-Risks (lump risk) that these central guys are taking. We can see this very good in China right now. Who knows, how long they have this ideal env there with cheap energy, non-regulated, chips....? Also Island is on risk due to tectonic activities.
The second but most important one is the NashEquilibrium, that will keep down the monopolists due to lost of user- confidence in this game.
Relax and keep watching or do better risk analysis.
|
|
|
|
Downtrend gebrochen. Es geht wieder nach oben! Wo is hier 'down' ?  |
|
|
|
we just broke the longer log scale resistance line
Hu? |
|
|
|
People who own Bitcoin bailing.
Exchanges have nothing to exchange and miners have nothing to mine if everyone's buggered off.
That won't happen en masse of course, and even if it did it wouldn't be all at once, but it seems mind boggling to me how blind all these players are.
They do not operate in a vacuum. They became these hideous succubi off the backs of thousands of little guys and gals who dragged Bitcoin out of nothingness with their passion and enthusiasm.
People who own Bitcoin bailing - indeed, but partially or more counterbalanced by new people that are finally cluing into wonderment of cryptocurrency and don't want to invest their money into coins controlled by a 23 year old with a parade of big banks behind him. And I have an inkling that if MAHF happens and things stabilize, that additional developers will want to be a part of such an amazing currency, even if some of the best in the world pass. Of course Core could hard fork a POW change and get an alt coin registered with Coinbase, Gemini, Bitpay etc. possibly. It might take a little while and I don't know if they really have the heart for a move like that or if it is just a passing thought. You might listen to GMAX here a little about that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1COaUmPtR4&feature=youtu.be&t=1627 |
|
|
|
This is one of its features. |
|
|
|
yep the devs of core have already ruled out making core compatible and done everything they can to force it to be an altcoin. this is why blockstream employees can no longer deny that they control bitcoin https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11128sipa closed it the same day it was opened, giving no chance for the community to review, interrogate, consider or choose real funny part https://bitcoincore.org/en/2017/08/18/btc1-misleading-statements/they pretend upgrades should only happen with community support yet do everything to avoid community involvement/choice Only one bitcoin and others just altcoins, it seems anything which not in line with core developers can't be implemented into bitcoin nodes, that's why scale solution implementation could take years to be activated, there are a lot of drama between core and miners to achieve an aggrement. However, if segwit makes bitcoin fees and confirmation time could be verified within 10 minutes or less than that, it would be nice, for now. If the drama would be ONLY between core and miners - no sadly the drama is fully decentralized between big parts of the community. It's a mess! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
