They do not just go out and say "come play on my website" because they know their website is already good and they do not need to undermine each others website to get more users to their own. That way we do see how people can be nice to each other while still competing, you do not have to compete with someone and hate them, you still can like them. That is why the new generation of casinos should definitely follow on their foot steps and help each other and talk with each other and if possible befriend each other as well, that is the only way they can stay in this brutal market I wouldn't be too enthusiastic about it Competition is about being stronger than your competitors, as simple as it gets. This is its very essence, and if you decline to compete, you lose and get kicked out of the business. However, if you can't beat your rivals, it makes sense to collude with them at some point and form what is known as oligopoly (let's call it a gambling cartel). And then, as a cartel, you would be interested to bring down all weaker players (I mean competing casinos) and suck in their client base. It's just business, nothing personal, as they say |
|
|
|
Okay guys, it is time to resurrect this thread and make mention of this post: In this post I'm going to share my view on Litecoin's near-term future
Now that Bitcoin seems to have retired from its position as a major speculative driver in the cryptocurrency market with likely more real value coming into play thereby further cementing current prices in their tight range, Litecoin looks like the best candidate for the next generation cryptocurrency speculative vehicle. The recent price action seems to confirm my assumption, and if I'm correct, we should see more and more speculative money get poured into this coin. So if you are looking to multiply your balance via riding volatility, it may be worth to start paying closer attention to Litecoin now (if you haven't already)
If you've been following the market closely, you might have noticed that Litecoin has been behaving recently perfectly in line with my description above. Indeed, it is easy to assess things in hindsight, but this is not the case here, even though what we saw was kinda set in stone beforehand and should have been expected. The crypto is famous for its volatility, but since Bitcoin is too big to be moved in a big way nowadays, we should have expected something else to be moved instead exactly that way And Litecoin was and still is the best tool out there to execute this plan in practice |
|
|
|
selling ethereum and all altcoins just to buy bitcoin? you know altcoins are more profitable than bitcoin, if bitcoin increase x2 then some altcoins will increase x3 or more, but it's up to you if you want to sell them and buy bitcoin It may be a right idea after all And still more so if we haven't yet seen the real lows. The point is altcoins are falling much stronger and it is not given or set in stone that when we start to rise again (or rather, if we start to rise again), altcoins are going to follow Bitcoin's lead. Personally, I'm certain only of Litecoin's imminent success as it will likely even outperform Bitcoin, while the rest of the pack will be slowly grinding behind, if at all but to be able to get multiple profits in altcoin you need to be able to know the altcoin that can potentially increase prices, whereas if you already have ethereum and several altcoins but don't have bitcoin then wait until the bitcoin price can really go up and wait for the altcoin price also follows the price movements of bitcoin. after the price rises and becomes expensive you can sell it Did you read my post? I have specifically mentioned Litecoin as one (probably the only one) altcoin worth investing in. If you had looked at the date of my post, you would have noticed that it was written a little over a week ago, and a few days after Litecoin rose like 40% or so in just two days. But even before that, around a month ago in this thread I was telling folks that Litecoin seems to be the most promising altcoin at this point (as far as the term "promising" is applicable to this market) |
|
|
|
Also Satoshi's coins and also some early Bitcoiner's coins are still recorded in some of these blocks and will be difficult to track, if it is only visisble in some nodes with the full Blockchain That's not what I propose It is not like I suggest we should just cut the long tail of the blockchain. We should, but we should also set incoming balances at the start of the pruned blockchain so that all balances will be intact. Indeed, if you want to trace old balances to the transactions that credited them, you would probably have to walk over all the snapshots until you reach the very first transaction which "initialized" a particular address |
|
|
|
i think it's actually both. it works like a feedback loop Obviously, in real life it is way more complicated than that. You should admit that someone has to buy first in order to ignite some fire in the oven, right? But I understand your point. People see Bitcoin rising and start buying in an effort to ride the trend and earn easy money which adds more fuel to the stove. But here's the catch. It is the balance of supply and demand which actually determines the price, and while for some period of growth your assumption makes sense, it may no longer hold when we see what you call "the parabolic blow off phase". In that phase the price is growing not because of demand surging but rather because of the supply running dry you would never be able to make that distinction. obviously low supply has an effect, but it's silly to say price---in a bubble---isn't growing because of surging demand. tell that to all the bagholders from 2017, lol You won't believe me But this is exactly what I had been telling future victims of the coming Bitcoin crash before it actually came. You may read more about it here if you haven't already. And yes, I'm certain that in the blow-off phase of that parabolic rise we were dealing with a drop in supply, not so much a rise in demand. Otherwise we should have seen higher prices until demand stopped increasing while supply started falling |
|
|
|
This month, Bakkt implementation will push through or maybe not as what they always do(postpone it) and I see lot of people talked about how it affects the price. Question is will it really make the price soar/higher or this is just an overrated assumption?
I am not sure when they are launching as it keeps on delaying as the dead line reaches and i am not sure when they will be able to launch it, but the initiative is a great one, if they can built a global infrastructure which could connect everybody and if it is a good front end system which can be used by any novice user, then it will be a great success, there are a lot of developments yet to come in this market and hopefully we will see some rapid changes in the next few years And while we are at it, I have a few questions regarding Bakkt As I got it, Bakkt can be a game-changer and as such it involves a lot of effort in building the platform (given how much its launch gets postponed). Obviously, the engineers building it should have a thorough understanding of Bitcoin intricacies and technicalities, how it works in general and in particular. But when you are deeply involved in some project, you will inevitably find a lot of shortcomings or even pitfalls, which you would want fixed or removed So did anyone from the Bakkt development team contact Bitcoin developers regarding adding or changing things in Bitcoin in some way? Somehow you would expect this from the project that big. Or are they contacting in private to keep things in secrecy? |
|
|
|
I get what you're saying with checkpoints from a practical view. The problem is, once you give developers that control, it's like Pandora's Box. It might begin an endless political controversy. How much proof of work is enough before Bitcoin is ultimately decided by human consensus? Maybe not two days worth of blocks, but how about a month or a year -- is that enough? Does this open up new selfish mining attack vectors where the attacker would release their chain reorg directly before a checkpoint is hard coded?
I guess this can be easily controlled I don't know which specific approach should be used but as I understand the probabilities can be easily calculated. So there likely shouldn't be a lot of human arbitrariness in deciding how much of the blockchain should remain before we prune it. In other words, if leaving 1 year of transactions is enough to make such an attack nearly impossible, it seems like a good trade-off, especially if we consider the exponential growth of the blockchain in the future. Indeed, it may not come at all, but what are we all doing here then? Further, there seems to be a misunderstanding. The checkpoint which I speak about should only refer to old transactions (say, older than a year), while you seem to mean that it should lock all transactions immediately prior to the checkpoint. This is not how I imagine that |
|
|
|
Then you profit by receiving dividends. This is exactly what Warren Buffett had been doing for years. In fact, even entire Berkshire Hathaway was bought by him in 1960's if I'm not mistaken
Warren does not profit by receiving dividends. He profits from real business growth, the owners' earnings business make every year. He doesn't take those earnings out as dividends because they will get taxed which will reduce the average annual compound rate. That is why you don't hear Berkshire paying dividends Thanks for making this clear So Warren Buffett is a type of investor that we should all be proud of (even if he doesn't like cryptocurrencies much) as he doesn't speculate but invests wisely in businesses. And since he is definitely good and successful at it, he invests only in projects which actually contribute to increasing the common good (i.e. economic well-being of the society) by producing real value. Why could anyone then come to blame him if he gives money to businesses which make us better off overall? Are people really so short-sighted or obsessed with hate so much, I don't get it? |
|
|
|
If you "restart" the blockchain by taking a "snapshot" at a set time, you lose all the history leading up to that snapshot, meaning you cannot verify it. You therefore have to trust that the snapshot you are downloading is accurate. If you are running a full node, you can verify the entire history of bitcoin yourself and then prune it locally as much as you want. Does a forced global pruning not mean you have to trust a third party to send you an accurate snapshot? But do you need to actually verify all the past blocks? As I see it, that simply doesn't make any sense and that's likely the reason why no one is doing this in practice (honestly, I don't know, so bear with me). In this way, there is no real need in blocks older than a certain age (say, 1 month) as far as supporting the network is concerned. That goes against the entire philosophy of proof of work, though. The point of proof of work is that it is cumulative -- there is a chain of work proven back to the genesis block. If one block is invalid, every block mined on top of it is invalid. This is a basic mechanism to prevent dishonest mining. What you're suggesting are called "checkpoints", and then pruning the blockchain below the last checkpoint. The early versions of Bitcoin actually included checkpoints to ensure reliability of confirmations. The use of checkpoints has been phased out -- there hasn't been one coded into the protocol since 2014. This is because of what I mentioned earlier: Checkpoints give developers power over Bitcoin's security model because developers can make blocks irreversible when they otherwise would have been reorganized by miners I understand what you say And in fact, I'm not arguing with that. But you don't want to understand me. Basically, you are taking a position of a Bitcoin maximalist (extremist) even if Bitcoin itself is a bunch of trade-offs (not even mentioning earlier used checkpoints). I'm not saying that we should set checkpoints every other day but pruning the blockchain after 1 year of transactions (or running a ghost version for those who need it) may be a trade-off that we should have if the size of the blockchain is set to expand dramatically in the coming years. And it should be ready now, not after it actually happens to avoid the situation of late 2017 (with fees). That's my point |
|
|
|
-snip- In my opinion, payment cards are way less convenient. I'm thinking of something like Apple Pay or Google Pay, without pre-paying or pre-loading anything, without registering and giving away your details, etc. Just your bitcoin wallet on your phone, swipe a terminal, paid. <5 seconds, no KYC, no hassle. Essentially allowing you to pay in bitcoin to stores that don't yet accept bitcoin. That's an app I would use, but perhaps others don't feel the same If no KYC (or anything similar) is required, then I'm okay with that I just meant to say that using phone (physically handling it) is not very convenient. Why would anyone want to see your phone at all, especially when you are standing in line? I've seen people using their phones this way, and it doesn't look like a very bright idea to me Though personally, I would prefer to have that option for litecoins as Bitcoin should be used as a store of value and as a tool for wealth transfer (I mean real wealth). You see, Bitcoin gives value to altcoins (this goes without saying and further debates), so if Litecoin usage expands, Bitcoin should also profit from it (it's sort of giving back) |
|
|
|
In terms of a "killer app", I'm envisioning something like a reverse BitPay, where I can swipe my phone over a payment terminal and it would debit my wallet with the right amount of bitcoins, automatically convert them to fiat, and then pay the merchant in fiat But isn't this exactly how Bitcoin payment cards are supposed to work? When you pay with them, basically the same sequence of events occurs. At first you send bitcoins to your wallet and then at the cashier's your bitcoins get converted to fiat which is paid to the merchant. And as far as I know, BitPay also issues prepaid Visa cards. In this way, a debit card is working like your phone (and if you ask me, payment cards are more convenient) So what did I miss in your post (or maybe something else)? |
|
|
|
Basically, before that happens there would be thousands of life ruined (probably 100+ thousand globally) and that is why people will not allow that, they will spend the last penny they have on buying bitcoin and still try to keep it up. This is the exact reason why bitcoin won't drop that much That's not going to work out First of all, the purchasing power of these people is not that great if we compare it with the selling pressure that a few largest Bitcoin holders can exert on the market. But even without these big players going to dump their coins, Bitcoin can still suffer badly from a massive amounts of shorts which can easily make the buyers capitulate Anyway, the real opposing force that can withstand long-lasting selling pressure should come from real adoption, i.e. from bitcoins used for anything but speculation (actually used and not held). And then no one will have to spend their last penny to support Bitcoin prices |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is over 80 times more expensive than Litecoin at the moment, while its on-chain volume in dollars is only 16 times that of Litecoin's. Take that for what it's worth, but it tells us that Litecoin has more real use than Bitcoin, i.e. 1 litecoin has more real value than 1 bitcoin (well, we should also take into account the supply of coins but you get the point). Otherwise, on-chain volume is not indicative of real use either
You're cherry picking here, and very much in the wrong way But it is not me It is you who suggested to use on-chain dollar volume as an indicator to assess real use. You come up with a new metric each time (which seemingly better suits your "agenda") after I explain that it doesn't show what you think it does. So who is actually cherry picking here and what exactly (apart from cherries, obviously)? Regardless, if you have been following my posts closely, you must know that I always speak of Dogecoin as one of few coins that have real world use (in this case it is gambling). Moreover, Dogecoin is likely the best coin in terms of real value versus speculative value (overall, it is not a good vehicle for speculation) |
|
|
|
If you invested in cryptocurrency and made profit from it, you are simply doing the exact same thing Buffett does to profit from businesses as owners.
If you own cryptocurrency and it appreciated in value, you contributed nothing to the world yet you received money for merely investing in it, that is the same thing as owning a business and the managers and workers do all the work and owners get all the profit. It is essentially the same thing painted differently I can't quite agree with you on this part People which invest in businesses are quite different from people investing in crypto. Money that you invest in a business (other than trading stocks at an exchange) goes to that business and allows it to develop and deliver a working product (I'm not talking about vaporware here). Then you profit by receiving dividends. This is exactly what Warren Buffett had been doing for years. In fact, even entire Berkshire Hathaway was bought by him in 1960's if I'm not mistaken In this way, Buffett is a lot better than most cryptocurrency "investors" as they are not investors in the strict sense of the word but rather profiteers (i.e. speculators). It looks like people are inadvertently confusing Warren Buffett the investor with George Soros the speculator |
|
|
|
The power is already given to the "people", these rich folks are not machines, they are people too. If you give the option to wider audience than the small ones than that could be a solution however people hate that because it means they will all live a mediocre life and just survive instead of one day becoming like their idols who are super rich. That is what has been the issue of communism vs capitalism from the beginning This power is not given as it is taken by these folks The word people here is used synonymous with nation, so it is not about a group of people which are at the top of the food chain which grabbed the power. It is assumed that power belongs to the nation and its people which can then delegate it to a group of individuals via elections, either direct as everywhere in the world or with the help of an electoral college as in the US. This should count as the choice made by the people |
|
|
|
Would this result in a decreased ability to "verify" the blockchain and all previous transactions? Yes. However it would also save HDD space when Bitcoin users want to store the entire blockchain, and network resources when new nodes attempt to download the entire blockchain. The drawbacks should be weighed with the benefits when entities decide to support this potential HF to potentially form sufficient consensus for a HF.
That's actually another good point And in that case you won't have to wait a few days until the download of the whole blockchain is finished if you want to run a full node. I saw a lot of people complaining about having to wait for days until they were finally able to run a Bitcoin node. Indeed, you can download a compressed archive of it from somewhere, but it is trusting a third party, which many people vigorously object to. Now imagine if the size of the blockchain gets out of control completely tomorrow. That would be like fees going to insane levels in late 2017 (but with no way back) |
|
|
|
Nice theme update for the forum! The choice of light and dark is a welcomed bonus because some people like to bet in a dark room or at night so the dark theme is nicer on the eyes.
Don't forget the reduced battery drain on mobile phones with Amoled screens, darker colors reduce battery. I would like to see a full black theme too. Excellent point you made. Didnt think these dark theme affected those on mobiles. I guess this was the main goal of those who created the theme and its initial intent instead of it being purely for aesthetics purposes It is rightfully assumed that many people will be playing dice deep at night when no one like a spouse or parents (as well as children, for that matter) can see and catch them gambling away their family budget. And dark themes (and cryptocurrencies in general) contribute a lot to this privacy and secrecy. Back in the day there were programs that would catch a keystroke and show some innocent document while you were watching porno But if it can help save battery along the way, then so be it |
|
|
|
What's the purpose of choice if no one is actually interested in having it?
Interesting. Well, that's one of the things that would be great to validate I think there's not much to validate as choice makes sense only when it is being consummated, so to speak. Otherwise, it is not a choice Following this track now, you, as a customer. If you had to decide between a crypto exchange that redirects profits to a cause of your choice, and a normal crypto exchange, would that be perceived as a added intrinsic value? How would you feel about the possibility of indirectly/directly helping/supporting others? Why?
I don't quite understand your question What do you mean by an added intrinsic value here? What does intrinsic have to do with all that? And added to the value of what exactly? If you mean choosing the right exchange, then yes, I would definitely use the one which I think promotes the things which I value high, even without redirecting profits to a cause of my choice (all other things being equal, obviously) Regarding helping others, there is a very good adage which says that charity begins at home. In other words, you don't know how your help is going to play out in the long (or in the wrong) run. But then again, provided all other things being the same, I would definitely choose helping others over avoiding helping them. That's a natural thing to do, to help others if you can (especially if it helps promote your cause) |
|
|
|
No, that won't be a solution
If we skip all the bullshit we are being told, the power of choice is not something which is granted. Really, why would anyone want to willingly give away power? But this is what giving the power of choice basically means. If you have real choice that means you have control over your actions (you can choose how to act and react) and that in turn means someone else doesn't have control over you. Simple, isn't it?
Simply put, the power of real choice can only be taken (by force, wit, cunning, or whatever) but that necessarily assumes there is a will to have that choice. So unless and until the people you refer to actually have that will and take steps to enforce it, nothing is going to change for reasons explained in my post above
Or it can be given What's the purpose of choice if no one is actually interested in having it? Let's say that Binance said, from now on, when you login, you will choose what cause to support.
After that, from every trade you make, we'll donate 1/3 of the fee we charge you to that cause in a decentralized and transparent way.
1) Is that in any way helping solve the matter (Giving people power of choice of where to help)
2) Would that value proposition make you choose Binance in that case, or any exchange that does applies this, over current/existing exchanges?
With the above example, take it to any industry... Construction, support, fintechs, agtechs, etc.etc.
I think you are distorting the meaning of terms and notions here. Basically, you are using the notion of having choice in the context which is different from what you and I had been using before. In other words, this is not the choice from my previous post. If anything, this choice has more to do with the will to have a choice, i.e. when you are choosing Binance over other exchanges, you are exerting that will (it is a way or means to exert it), but that act alone won't give you the choice in the sense I used in my post (e.g. what government to have). But the money thus collected could indeed help take and have this choice I should have definitely added dough to the list |
|
|
|
If anything, you should take the market cap and relate it to trading volume. So if you actually go and do that, you may start questioning if Litecoin is "not used as much as you think" and whether these uses are in fact negligible
Trading volumes are pure speculation. It's not indicative of actual use. If you want to see the bigger picture, which does include speculation, but for sure also plenty of ecommerce and other sorts of value transfers, then you have to focus on the on-chain volume. https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/ $5.4 billion on-chain 24H activity. https://bitinfocharts.com/litecoin/ $335 million on-chain 24H activity Pure speculation is one of such uses I agree that it may not be indicative of real-life use (as in e-commerce or whatever), though personally, I see it as a good hint at such use. And your links in fact confirm exactly that. Bitcoin is over 80 times more expensive than Litecoin at the moment, while its on-chain volume in dollars is only 16 times that of Litecoin's. Take that for what it's worth, but it tells us that Litecoin has more real use than Bitcoin, i.e. 1 litecoin has more real value than 1 bitcoin (well, we should also take into account the supply of coins but you get the point). Otherwise, on-chain volume is not indicative of real use either |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
