yep things do change dramatically in the crypto space in just a short time period but things like usdc and gusd become part of the underlying operating infrastructure for the crypto market so i dont expect them to go anywhere in the next 25 years. especially usdc. 25 years is something i wouldn't bet on though. "Stable coins" are the scamming part of the crypto space, because there's nothing stable to begin with; let alone decentralized and censorship resistant. Hold a stable coin and you have to trust the company that's responsible for their issuance and the monetary policy of the government that issues the currency the stable coin is "pegged to". Completely opaque and pointless. 1. channel announce just tells you an ID.. The channel announcement message contains the funding transaction of the two nodes, a proof that the one node owns their key, another proof that the other node also owns their key, three of which are enough to verify they have coins in reserve. hint: how did you get their "beforehand signature".. oh yea they authorised it.. The node, I deposit, constructed and gave me the signed closing-channel transaction that spends outputs that haven't yet been published. That's what I mean "beforehand"; before I even pay them, they've given me the right to take my money back.
If you want to continue this, use your thread and don't derail this.
|
|
|
even in gold there is a variable bottom too.. Yes, but it doesn't change based on the demand, whereas in bitcoin if there's less demand, there's tendency to drop its cost of production too, and dozens of other factors similar to gold. The significant part is that gold's cost is not related with its demand; definitely not directly connected. i know you want to cry blue murder about daily and fortnightly variables. but you are thinking short term and only wanting to see short term charts.. look beyond your short term vision... Difficulty is rather a long-term parameter. Ten years ago, you could mine a block with a GPU. Currently that's definitely not feasible. That's because of the demand. On the other hand, gold, while not varying much from its 2012's market value, has still the same cost, regardless of its demand. But, yeah, what does that idiot, alt-girl has to provide to this discussion anyways? ![Roll Eyes](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
|
|
|
When you use the phrase "double spend" it makes it sound like I'm trying to do something dishonest though. I wouldn't approach them and ask to do a "double spend". But, you do try to double-spend money. The fact the transaction isn't included in a block, yet, doesn't make that not true. If somebody had accepted your 0-conf transaction, and you paid a miner to reverse it, you will have essentially gained the chance to spend the money again. And it is dishonest if you ask me. You've marked your transaction as "non-RBF". This means that, besides your word, a merchant can sleep easy that there won't be nodes that will relay a transaction that double-spends. Reversing that transaction is like cheating the network. If you wanted to have the option to double-spend, you should have opted-in RBF. But if I told them that I was just trying to speed up the same exact transaction, that's not a double spend. If you want to speed up a non-RBF transaction, utilize child-pays-for-parent.
|
|
|
but the ultimate bottom is the important thing. But, there's not a nearly invariable ultimate bottom in bitcoin, that's what I pointed out. Difficulty adjustments change that temporary bottom every 2 weeks, but difficulty adjustments are affected by demand. It is, therefore, clear that the demand does affect the minimum cost, which doesn't happen with any other commodity or asset. As you rightly said, there's a bottom value for gold, houses etc., but not for bitcoin. And I think you agree with me here: if there was no demand. its not an instant $0 of the coin.. its a process.. the $25k minimum slowly drops as people drop out. and like i explained this slow drop is not a certainty of being $0 short term because the drop itself slowly going down can infact re-energise some desire/demand and thus keep the price active longer or re-birth a new demand.
|
|
|
this is the hidden value line. EG it costs people atleast $900 to mine an ounce of gold. this is golds value line Isn't it more proper to say that there's cost? There's no "hidden value line", it just costs $X to mine gold, it costs $Y to make a house, it costs a frequently variable amount of money to mine a bitcoin. bitcoins value is backed by the mining and acquisition costs.. But, the mining and acquisition costs in bitcoin depend (although not solely) on the demand. Difficulty does change according to the demand. Mining bitcoin isn't the same as mining gold, and therefore not a good example of the "minimum price", which is, as said, the cost.
|
|
|
What does back bitcoin? It is more or less a game to consider that it is backed by demand. Everything, by the same reasoning, is backed by demand. Houses, stocks, bonds, metals, food, guns, vehicles, goods etc., everything. If new demand is "0" then the value of bitcoin may be "0" and it will be difficult to consider it as an investment or currency. Again, that's true for everything. If there's no demand for a thing, it has no value. If we imagine that all bitcoins are sold then new demand could appear only if bitcoin has been already treated as a currency It's already treated as currency. Today fiat is used to buy bitcoin on the market, then bitcoin circularizes in buy/sell process, then it come out to be changed for fiat. Bitcoin isn't always exchanged for fiat. As said, it's a currency.
|
|
|
I'm temporarily removing my avatar and personal text. At least until I see some activity.
|
|
|
I believe privacy and anonymity are utopias. You can never achieve 100% of both in this modern world. Just because you can't achieve 100% anonymity, which is natural since there isn't such thing as completely anonymous but levels of anonymity, it doesn't mean they're utopias. You can and should try to hide, protect yourself from surveillance, as much as possible, for your own good. If you've given up with this, you wouldn't mind sharing your real name, home address and phone number on an internet board. But, you won't. I didn't say that pseudo-anonymity and kyc are one and the same. No, you didn't. I just cleared it up.
|
|
|
As already said correctly above, bitcoin is a pseudo-anonymous cryptocurrency. [...] Look at how many different KYC services that work with bitcoin are now Pseudo-anonymity doesn't have to do with KYC, though. If your merchant requires you to give him personal info to make a purchase with cash and you're obtuse enough to give it to him, it doesn't worsen cash's anonymity. Because privacy invasion happens outside the transaction. Same goes for bitcoin. Pseudo-anonymity is on-chain traceability.
|
|
|
3. Close all your bank accounts and transact only using Monero or any other similar privacy focused cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin is not anonymous. Yes, but Monero is much less adopted. Better go with bitcoin, wherein you gain a decent, acceptable level of privacy and have lots of merchants to choose from. Utilize coin control and mixing. If you are able to do all these above mentioned activities, you will be able to avoid most of the monitoring mechanisms. Here's some good replacements: - Google search with DuckDuckGo.
- Android with CalyxOS or GrapheneOS.
- Google Chrome with Mozilla Firefox plus some extensions like uBlock Origin. If you're willing to sacrifice speed for privacy, go with Tor, even better.
- Gmail with Protonmail.
- Windows with Linux Mint. Tails is an even better OS, but not an alternative for a local, personal computer.
Privacy is overrated! Privacy is underrated. If it was overrated, people would care. They don't. Alone your data doesn't make any difference! Any difference to who? To Meta, Microsoft, Google etc.? No, it doesn't make any difference. To your life? It does.
|
|
|
that currency will have a chance to become the main cryptocurrency in the future. Always has been... ![Tongue](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/tongue.gif) That 0.00000001 and that 1000000000 actually look like the same things now Perhaps in another galaxy, but not in the Milky Way. 1,000,000,000 is 100 quadrillion times bigger than 0.00000001. if that 0.00000001 is too expensive for FIAT users 0.00000001 BTC, or 1 sat in short, is currently valuated at 0.0003 USD. This means that, for each of the smallest unit of USD you give, which is 0.01 USD (or 1 cent in short), you can buy 33 sats. It's definitely "affordable".
|
|
|
And what is the reason for this? There isn't always a reason. The creator chose it, the users agreed with it, there's no reason to change now there's consensus. Setting a coinbase maturity to 100 is an exaggeration, but it makes sure that if a deep chain reorganization occurs, the transactions that spend the coinbase outputs are invalidated, which is needed. It seemed useful with the value overflow incident as it reorged by 53 blocks.
|
|
|
Mostly because Binance is very user friendly and newbie friendly while Bisq is not. Bisq is user friendly. Sure, it's a lot more simple to register on Binance, understand there's a CEO that runs this thing, just like any other account you've made on the internet, deposit money and have your assets exchanged than installing a software, reading how it works and comprehending the advantages. But, if you're not here willing and disciplined to learn more in the first place, you've already started going in the wrong path of this revolutionary space.
|
|
|
In my opinion, CBDCs are designed to be the only money in the world. But, they can't, because there's money that satisfies needs you can't even imagine doing in the traditional financial system. Cash will be banned (banknotes spread viruses, cash is used by criminals and terrorists). Cash is also used by innocent people. It won't be banned because of terrorism. It'll be banned to make privacy invasion as much effective as possible. In other words, to control. IT corporate money will be banned (corporations should not compete with governments). That's just one's opinion. Cryptocurrencies and stablecoins will be banned (these are monetary surrogates, their circulation of money harms the new global financial system). They've tried to do that in the past a gazillion times, yet, I can still use bitcoin to purchase many stuff. However, direct settlements with bitcoins can be prohibited (by controlling the circulation of goods and services). Direct settlements with bitcoin cannot be prohibited in the same way cryptography cannot be prohibited.
|
|
|
But if they will be burned, it will be quite hard to recreate them. But, if they get burned, it doesn't make sense to recreate them later. They are either removed from circulation or not. If someone will grab all coins, then miners could reject to mine that, or they could mine it for themselves. I'm highly against this. If miners start rejecting transactions they don't like, despite according to their fee rate, we would no longer have censorship resistance. Furthermore, bringing these old coins into circulation, again, would either increase the supply or make them double-spent. In either case, it'd only be bad for bitcoin.
|
|
|
CBDC is a digital financial system that is fully controlled by the Central Bank (unlike, for example, cash). Central bank does fully control cash, since it fully controls the supply. Sure, it doesn't know who pays who, but monopolizing people's money is entire control. The exchange of bitcoins for CBDC can be disabled at the program level. You can't know what I exchange, unless there's an intermediary involved. Same goes for cash, bank accounts, poker stars credit points, anything that's treated as money. However, electronic money, such as bank account, does violate your privacy. This will turn Bitcoin into a geek toy. No, it wouldn't. Even if we assume they somehow traced everyone who's going to trade their E-USD for BTC, and froze their accounts, which is impossible but say if, there's still a pretty strong economy build on top of bitcoin. There are people, me included, who use bitcoin as a currency. Also, this dictating attitude would push many into using money that is censorship resistant.
|
|
|
[...] The proof that there's work remains, though. Maybe taking a block as an example is a bad analogy, because one might mine easier than another sometimes, but the difficulty is a humanly insusceptible parameter that reveals with quite certainty that there's work. From a quick -getinfo, it's 29897409688833.63. You can't fake that, nor can you drop it by 90%* by any chance, due to the abrupt exposure of average accuracy. There's a specific work devoted, that's publicly known, miners who thrive to finding a valid hash, ASICs in limited supply. The ability for someone who "has not worked for it" to get such vanity address, AKA PoW, is very small, but less than the ability to reward themselves more than it currently has, especially at the time it firstly received coins. Chances aren't 0%, but it's 100% pointless.
|
|
|
So, people who use PayPal can now move a thing they didn't have before to begin with. Great move. I always wonder why people still prefer to use custododial ways to keep their cryptocurrencies in a way they can never have complete control of their coins. Misinformation, ignorance, arrogance. If they add Bitcoin LN, their users will realize they don't need Paypal anymore ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) Not if they need PayPal to move them. ![Tongue](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
|
|
|
Seems like the way the WIF was encoded for most private keys is SHA256 used once which is different from what tells the documentation of WIF. WIF is an encoded format; it doesn't tell you the functions that were called before that. Just like in base64, base58 etc., you just represent the same binary data in another way. A decoded WIF gives you: prefix + private_key + is_compressed + checksum. What ECDSA are you talking about here? This is Bitcoin... The SHA256(phrase's bytes) gives you the ECDSA private key.
Why do you search for double hashes? Brainwalletx uses single hash. It's justified that you found no transactions.
|
|
|
|