Another state-sponsored digital currency with the same properties of Fiat. Russian deputy finance minister has suggested to change cryptoruble to cyber-ruble because cyber-ruble has fewer negative connotations and anarchist-freedom-loving meaning than cryptoruble and that's what it would be, to compete against ruble and replace cash with cryptoruble to streamline the payment of taxes. If the owner is unable to declare the source of cryptorubles, a flat tax of 13% will be levied when converting the cryptocurrency into Russian rubles. Similarly, an automatic 13% tax slab will also be levied on the earned difference of transactions involving buying and selling a crypotoruble. The state-sponsored cryptocurrencies system is just getting started, China or India would be the next country to launch their own cryptocurrency. The adoption of these centralized cryptocurrencies specially in a cash-based economy would depend on how they are going to be different than the existing electronic payment systems. |
|
|
|
In 2015, two economists who worked at the Central Bank of Barbados had released a paper titled, Should Cryptocurrencies Be Included In The Portfolio Of International Reserves Held By The Central Bank Of Barbados? This paper examines the potential role of Bitcoin as part of the portfolio of external assets held by a central bank. Using the case of Barbados, the paper also provides a simulation of the effect holding some proportion of their asset base would have had on the stability of the foreign reserves as well as the return on the portfolio of assets. 1. Potential risks, lack of regulation and control over the money supply of Bitcoin would cause price instability, financial instability, and payment system instability. 2. Since Bitcoin reduces the effectiveness of monetary policy at the country level, there should be a greater international cooperation through the International Monetary Fund (IMF) by offering quasi-membership status to Bitcoin and holding reserves of it to counter speculative attacks. The study employed two approaches to assess the viability of Bitcoin in the international reserves portfolio of the Central Bank of Barbados, counterfactual simulation and a Monte Carlo forecasts. Counterfactual simulations done over the period 2009 to 2015 suggested that adding Bitcoin to the reserve portfolio of the central bank would not significantly increase volatility but could provide opportunities to offset exchange rate depreciations against major currencies such as the Pound and the Euro. If 0.01 percent of reserves were invested in Bitcoin from November 2010 to April 2015, while the volatility of reserves would have been quite similar, the Bitcoin reserves would have been $291,926. This theoretical figure is more than 20 percent greater than any of the other major currencies would have generated. Bitcoin is still very much in the early stages of adoption. As a result, there are many issues that have to be surpassed. The markets for the sale of Bitcoin are unregulated, unless recognised commercial banking, financial, and central banking entities actively participate in the market, the probability of a nation holding Bitcoins as part of their portfolio of international reserves is minimal. The study concluded, given that Barbados maintains a peg against the US dollar, it is necessary that the Central Bank of Barbados holds enough of various currencies as a precaution against speculative attacks and if Bitcoin is incorporated into the portfolio of foreign balances of the Central Bank of Barbados, that its share should be relatively small, such as the 0.01% model referred to above, it falls within the acceptable margin of volatility with a likely chance of significant returns. http://www.centralbank.org.bb/Portals/0/Files/Working_Papers/2015/Should%20Cryptocurrencies%20be%20included%20in%20the%20Portfolio%20of%20International%20Reserves%20held%20by%20the%20Central%20Bank%20of%20Barbados.pdf |
|
|
|
I haven't used the Square Cash app, limited to US only, but there is information regarding verification and sending/receiving limits available on their website. When you receive your first Square Cash payment, you’ll be asked to link a bank account or debit card, but guess no other verification. If you want to keep some funds in your Cash app, you can cash out a custom amount or your can spend those funds right from your Cash prepaid card. Square Cash personal accounts have sending and receiving limits. When you send more than $250 in one week, we’ll automatically ask you to verify your name, date of birth, and the last 4 digits of your SSN to increase the sending limit to $2,500 (in most states).
When you receive more than $1000 in 30 days, we’ll ask you to verify your name, date of birth, and last 4 digits of your SSN to increase the receiving limit to amounts over $1000 per 30 days (in most states). https://squareup.com/help/us/en/article/5505-send-and-request-money-with-square-cashhttps://squareup.com/help/us/en/article/5588-supported-cards-with-square-cash |
|
|
|
A trend has been started that bitcoin is now used only for raising income by buying and selling it but we are ignoring its most important fact that it was created to be used as currency and if it can be used as the currency it would really help community to enjoy its eases and regions who are accepting btc must have to start it as currency this will automatically boost user no's as well a prices,
I wouldn't call it a trend, but rather a phase where Bitcoin's secondary function, as a store of value is retaining its purchasing power into the future for its primary function, as a medium of exchange. Mainstream Bitcoin adoption wouldn't happen without merchants. Solutions like LN would speed up this process, but ultimately a transition from a community of hodlers into a dominant Bitcoin economy would depend on coming up with applications/startups that would not only motivate non-bitcoin users, but also hodlers to buy and spend Bitcoin and merchants to easily integrate Bitcoin as a payment option. A big Bitcoin marketplace, POS apps, incentivizing/rewarding use of Bitcoin. Not about which one is best, Bitcoin's utility as a decentralized medium of exchange and its scarcity, store of value both are equally important in determining the long-term potential of Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
I have realized that almost every body is anti government when it comes to bitcoin and be decentralized or not being controlled by government.  We generally don't like the governments getting too involved with our personal, financial/economic, social lives so when we start using a technology like Bitcoin which not only gives us a choice to steer clear of governmental regulations/interference, but also empowers us economically, I guess we naturally tend to be anti-government when it comes to Bitcoin. The sentiment behind the creation of Bitcoin is anti-government, but does that mean all Bitcoin users are anti-government? Nope. Different philosophies, while for a few anti-government/anarchism/agorism is appealing, censorship-resistant border-less means of exchange does matter, and for others these aspects doesn't count much. |
|
|
|
btc in dump these days ,so what will happen next few days . is it dump again for correction or rise up again
Dump. That term is antonyms to pump. So is it Bitcoin a pump and dump currency? There is something called ideology, technology/math/utility behind Bitcoin, yeah and secondarily speculation/monetary. Speculators do come up with a couple of simple terms to make the fundamentals meaningless, pump/dump. There is Amara's Law: We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run. The speculators don't see the long-term effect of Bitcoin, but overestimate the short-term effect and expect the value to rise in proportion to their overestimation. Is it plausible? Nope. Long-term investors ain't bothered about it. I might have typed something out of context, but the moral of the story is, in short-term there would be spikes and corrections. Spikes on how far the speculators can push the pice and corrections on how far the investors/utility rise up to the speculation. |
|
|
|
I don't see them as a good thing if the resulting fork shares the same hashing algorithm, because miners will always act selfishly seeking profit, and a decrease on hashrate because some miners decide to mine some pumped shitcoin derived from a fork is not good news, but this is part of bitcoin and in the long term the market should correct this.
Forks like Bitcoin Gold pose no risk at all.
Long period has elapsed since this thread was created Nevertheless, I still stick to my guns and think that hard forks are kind of required catharsis or purge of sorts which helps Bitcoin to evolve. For example, now miners are relentlessly switching their hashrate between Bitcoin Cash and just Bitcoin which clearly shows how corrupt, inefficient and ultimately detrimental the current system is. Is this a good development? I guess yes, in the long run, since before solving a problem, you should first understand it or even see that it exists at all. You could indeed turn a blind eye to it but it certainly won't go away on its own. It could only get worse over time Miners moving back and forth between Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash isn't over yet, it is going to be cyclic process, but most importantly the good thing that is going to come out of this is a much needed solidarity in the Bitcoin mining space. Recently, when BCH surpassed Bitcoins hashrate, Slush Pool temporarily became the biggest mining pool with 20.8% and it is also worth nothing that hashrate of Slush Pool has increased around 50% since October. So while purely profit-driven miners are leaving the bitcoin mining space open for competition, it is gradually getting filled up with miners who prefer Bitcoin stability over wasting their resources on an altcoin for short-term profits. |
|
|
|
Recently there have been reports that RBI is planning to ban Bitcoin in India. A petition seeking the indecisive government to act on Bitcoin has landed in India's Supreme Court. A PIL (Public Interest Litigation) petition has been filed before the Indian Supreme Court, seeking it to issue directions to regulate the flow of Bitcoin and ensure that it is made accountable to the exchequer. The petitioner, Dwaipayan Bhowmick, said:
"It is submitted that certain countries have made Bitcoin subject to their respective tax regimes, while a few other countries have designated it as a commodity, thereby making Bitcoin subject to government regulation and accountable to exchequer but no such mechanism exists in India till date."
The petitioner also argued that regulatory organizations like the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) were trying to shirk their responsibility with respect to regulating Bitcoin.
While there are multiple Bitcoin exchanges like Coinsecure, Zebpay and Unocoin operating in India, the regulators have not come out with any guidelines for Bitcoin operations. The RBI has in the past (2013 and 2017) warned investors about the risks involved in investing in cryptocurrencies.
As seen in the past, courts often step in to adjudicate when governments fail to offer clear guidance. It is preferable that governments take the opinions of experts and provide clarity on their stance on cryptocurrencies, else regulation will be built on a piecemeal basis from judicial pronouncements. https://cointelegraph.com/news/indecisive-government-causes-bitcoin-to-land-in-indias-supreme-court |
|
|
|
Lightning Network activation may in fact take many years, if ever, and it may require a new hard fork, Bitcoin Cash style. SegWit took more than a year to finally get activated, and what year that was! SegWit itself is a minor improvement, and while it should pave the path to LN, Lightning Network will be the last thing that Bitcoin miners would agree to. Simply because it would kill their cash cow, and their revenue flow will run dry.
And don't forget the reward halving in just two years.
Lightening Network is in progress, no ETA as of yet. Yeah, implementation might take a couple of years or even a few years. As far as LN and miners are concerned, LN is neither a soft fork nor a hard fork, an additional layer on top of the Bitcoin network so implementation of LN doesn't require consensus. |
|
|
|
|
There have been initiatives to address the issue of buying Bitcoin without any verification, decentralized exchanges, but they aren't quite popular yet, very low volume. Almost all exchanges have KYC/AML policy. You can't really blame them, exchanges accepting Fiat have to comply with the law, they are just playing safe. And additionally there might be some platforms from where you can buy Bitcoin without verification, but not only paying a premium, but the risk of getting scammed is also high. There is simple logic, centralized exchanges do offer consumer protection to an extent and more over there is flexibility and high liquidity. As far as crypto to crypto exchange is concerned, atomic swaps would remove the second man in the middle, but for Fiat to crypto exchange, decentralized exchanges aren't yet a viable option, maybe in the recent future.
|
|
|
|
|
I have used both BTCJam and BitLendingClub (Loanbase). Read about a couple of P2P lending ICOs targeting the unbanked, interesting projects, but today the Bitcoin P2P lending industry is relatively too small, but will grow with Bitcoin adoption and legalization.
As far as an ideal P2P site is concerned, for legit borrowers, a Bitcoin P2P lending platform offers them the chance to take loans based more on reputation rather than credit score, entirely different from traditional methods, but at the same time this is the major weakness, it opens up the door for scammers. So I guess there should be a solid system in place to check the creditworthiness of a borrower. Right now it is only restricted to online identity verification/social media accounts/business accounts. Don't know if Bitcoin P2P lending would evolve to the extent of physical verification.
The Bitcoin lending industry isn't regulated, lenders are always at risk from defaulters and I guess this situation would remain unchanged until Bitcoin gets legalized by major countries, but still a more efficient system to legally sue or recover funds in case of fraud would be ideal for a P2P platform.
|
|
|
|
Fractional reserve banking (FRB) is against the fundamentals of Bitcoin, inflationary/deflationary, unlimited/limited, centralized/decentralized. Though Bitcoins monetary base is limited to 21 million, the money supply of bitcoins can be increased through FRB/Bitcoin derivatives. There have been discussions on whether FRB is possible with Bitcoin. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Fractional_Reserve_Banking_and_BitcoinIf in future, Bitcoin evolves as one of the primary currencies then I guess FRB might emerge in Bitcoin economy, exchanges as depository institutions or even a fractional-reserve free banking system with Bitcoin. Currently Bitcoin P2P lending sites are based on this principle. |
|
|
|
|
I don't know whether it was because of spam attacks, but it was obvious that miners were gaming on difficulty oscillations between Bitcoin and BCH which resulted in BCH having a higher hashrate than Bitcoin, but now as usual the profit-driven miners are returning. The backlog is clearing up. The good thing to come out of this is Slush Pool temporarily becoming the largest pool with 20.8%, simply great. The percentage of Segwit transactions is still around 10. LN implementation might take a few more months, but I am hoping there would be a much needed solidarity in the mining space, more non-chinese pools.
|
|
|
|
yeah sorry, I actually mixed up two topics in this one: 1. Bitcoin is just a investment coin and 2. How the price is controlled.
Bitcoin is not just an investment coin/store of value, but also spender coin/medium of exchange, and speculator coin/get-rich-quick. Investment coin for those who truly understand the technology behind Bitcoin and its long-term potential. Spender coin for those who want to use a decentralized peer-to-peer payment system. Speculator coin for those who don't care much about the technology and are in for short-term profits/get-rich-quick. Yeah, media and whales do have an influence on Bitcoin's price, but not controlled. It is free market, driven by supply/demand, utility/scarcity, and of course speculation. |
|
|
|
Found this on Reddit, classification of possible attacks on Bitcoin, probability of them happening in the next 10 years, and the extent of damage these attacks could do. Bitcoin's antifragility has already been put to test through a few legal attacks/ban, numerous PR/social attacks/FUD/negative news, ongoing financial attacks/forks/state-sponsored cryptos, and hybrid attacks by malicious actors who for their own individual gains want to slowdown Bitcoin adoption/development by trying to manipulate a part of the community to support their forked altcoins.  Bitcoin does have its own share of weaknesses that could be exploited, be it spam attacks, 51% attack, Sybil attack, DoS attacks, and timejacking. There is a probability that some of these attacks might happen in the next ten years and the extent of damage would depend on the type of attack. Compared to technical/cyberattacks, I think the majority of attacks on Bitcoin in the next ten years would be legal, social, financial, and hybrid in nature. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/7cht20/classification_of_attacks_on_bitcoin_oc/ |
|
|
|
There is an interesting article about crypto J-curve, boom and bust cycles. Going through the history, it is evident that Bitcoin already has been through a few boom-bust cycles and a few more will come. Bitcoin's valuation depends on current utility value (CUV) and discounted expected utility value (DEUV). Bitcoin is going through a phase where DEUV outweighs CUV. Rather than deriving value from its current utility, it is more speculative and when speculators bolt for the exist, DEUV drops, and lack of CUV results in a correction. But then as the CUV of Bitcoin increases, the DEUV expands once again, another bull run followed by a correction. The pattern would play out until there is an equilibrium between CUV and DEUV, both of them expanding in tandem. The cycle will play out again… and again… and again. In macro-patterns and micro-patterns I expect many J-curves to play out, the difference is one of time scale. By macro-pattern I refer to a decadal time-scale. Each prior peak of DEUV will pale in comparison to the following peak in DEUV, creating an ever refreshing J-curve. That J-curve will be composed of many micro J-curves, the periodicity of which is still being determined.
Ultimately, at steady-state, a cryptoasset should be mostly composed of CUV, with a tad of speculation happening at the margin. At this point, the multi-decadal J-curve should start to taper, ultimately resembling an S-curve as the years of utility roll on. The amount of continued speculation around future utility will depend on how much of the target market has already been captured, and how much the protocol has ossified. Of course, this is all theory, so don’t expect perfect patterns in reality. But so long as utility waxes over the long-run, we’ll make it to the (full) moon. https://medium.com/@cburniske/the-crypto-j-curve-be5fdddafa26 |
|
|
|
|
PayPal doesn't directly accept Bitcoin, but Braintree, a division of PayPal has partnered with Coinbase to accept Bitcoin.
Currently, Bitcoin network processes around 7 transactions per second, while PayPal with an average of 200 tps. In terms of scalability and daily transactions volume, Bitcoin is much far behind PayPal. But apart from being a good store of value, Bitcoin could also be a better decentralized version of PayPal by building second layer payment systems on top of Bitcoin, Lightning Network.
So in future, Bitcoin might be better than PayPal, but again it depends on how users will treat Bitcoin, as a store of value or medium of exchange and the extent of merchant adoption.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, the original paper is outdated since the reference implementation has changed significantly from 2009 and the context in which the terms nodes and miners were used is a bit confusing to newbies, but still the overall concept remains the same.
Rewriting/updating the original white paper to prevent individuals from citing/justifying their ideas as Satoshi's vision would be the same as justifying the updated version as Satoshi's vision. It would not only be unethical, but bad for the consensus driven Bitcoin ecosystem. Bitcoin.org does have plenty of learning resources and for educational purpose creating a new white paper, citing the original, adding additional information, and calling it updated version, but not attributing it to Satoshi would be good.
|
|
|
|
What do you think about the new business idea, which is co-creation?
It's sth completly differnt than sharing economy. Do you think it's a future business model?
It isn't completely different. Sharing economy/collaborative consumption is a hybrid economy having different aspects and co-creation is one of them. Product reviews/customer satisfaction surveys/focus groups/user testing/feedbacks, brands/products have been relying on customers to create customer-centric products for quite some time now. Collaborating with customers and rewarding creators isn't only necessary for building a loyal consumer community, but also having a competitive edge. Crowdholding is building a Blockchain-based decentralized open innovation/co-creation platform that will connect entrepreneurs with the public/co-creators. |
|
|
|
|
Majority of people don't believe in Bitcoin or try to grasp the fact that Bitcoin is a paradigm shift in the field of finance because according to them Bitcoin doesn't offer anything new or serve a new purpose and this would only change when Bitcoin would have a killer app. An app which would connect Bitcoin to the majority. It might be in the field of payments/remittances, unbanked, instant microtransactions with the lowest fee. Lightening Network could be Bitcoin's killer app.
Would Bitcoin be used as medium of exchange after LN or would it remain a deflationary store of value or would it be used as both a medium of exchange and store of value? IMO, Bitcoin as digital gold is definitely appealing to investors, but mass appeal lies in its utility as a permissionless, borderless peer-to-peer payment system.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
