Mining is far better than staking, in fact I wouldn't recommend staking to anyone, it's just way too risky. Altcoins are very volatility, you can invest in coin to stake it and it will crash later and you'll be in a big loss.
Agree with you! but if anyone can't afford mining components then I think staking is good. Because I do it myself and nothing bad has happened yet The keyword here is "yet" - investing in altcoins is a very risky business, that field is full of scams, pump and dump schemes and just shitty projects. And staking forces you to lock-in your investment, so it's like a long-term investing, and charts show that holding alts for long periods of time is a bad idea, as they tend to go down with time. Simply holding Bitcoin will likely outperform staking in terms of USD gains. |
|
|
|
Considering that governments want to stay in power, they'll do anything to force people to use their Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) instead of any other alternative payment system. If that happens, Bitcoin will be doomed.
Have you seen the news lately? India's Supreme Court ruled that their central bank's ban on Bitcoin was unconstitutional, something similar happened in Israel recently, many countries are legalizing and regulating crypto. They are not afraid of it, they don't think it will replace fiat anytime soon, and maybe it will even be a net positive, because new markets mean more taxes. And central bank coins still don't exist, all we have is just statements that they want to create such currency, but they were telling the same thing even before Bitcoin was created. |
|
|
|
|
He hates Bitcoin because its decentralized, so there's no one to do business with - with shitcoins like XRP or ETH he can call their respective bosses and have a chat with them how they can make changes to their coins that would in some way benefit his business, but if he tried the same with Bitcoin devs or community, he would be laughed at.
|
|
|
|
|
Hyperinflation only happens when a government decides to start printing money to cover their spendings, but if they don't do this then there's no hyperinflation. Economic crisis on it's own doesn't cause hyperinflation, it can devalue a national currency, but not on a scale of Venezuela or Zimbabwe. Also, there was a huge epidemic 100 years ago known as the Spanish flu, it was way more serious than the coronavirus, and as you can see, banking didn't disappear.
|
|
|
|
I ask this because of the corona virus where people are too scared to hold money.
The issue is that we value btc against the usd and other fiat currencies. If fiat currencies were no longer how would bitcoin be valued...inflation etc? Can't get my head around how it would work.
Some (likely very few) people are afraid of cash, which isn't the same as fiat, because fiat can be both physical and electronic. No one is throwing their bank cards away because of the virus. Coronvirus outbreak isn't a reason for Bitcoin to go viral (pun intended). And just speaking theoretically, Bitcoin is aboslutely not ready to become the dominant currency - no scalability, high volatility, often poor user experience, lack of adoption, uncertain legal status in many countries, etc. |
|
|
|
|
Mining is far better than staking, in fact I wouldn't recommend staking to anyone, it's just way too risky. Altcoins are very volatility, you can invest in coin to stake it and it will crash later and you'll be in a big loss. There's no safe altcoin to stake, in fact most of alts with staking are just shitcoins. With mining, especially if it's CPU or GPU mining, you can always sell your used hardware if things go bad, and there's a wide variety of coin you can mine - if one goes down, you just switch to mining another.
|
|
|
|
|
Is this the first precedent of Bitcoin ban being lifted, or were there already cases like that? Maybe India will go down in history as the first country to unban Bitcoin, which is quite remarkable, because it shows how the people can take back their rights from authoritarian assholes who like to ban things.
|
|
|
|
|
Do all these calculations account for the volatility of the market? Like, in 2017 the price reached $20,000 and year later it dipped to $3,600. The goal of stacking sats is to lower the risk of buying at the top and experiencing a crash, and this strategy performs best when the market is bearish or very uncertain. If you just make some linear upward extrapolation into the future, it might be way off the actual results.
|
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't worry about getting the list of things that you must learn, this isn't a college where you have subjects, for example there's a lot of high rank people on this forum who don't know how Bitcoin works, and some of them are still very good posters because they know about other things. Just make sure to avoid shitty sources like cointelegraf, coinidol, bitcoin.com, craig wright and so on. Before you are going to learn from some source, verify that they are indeed known and respected in this community.
|
|
|
|
Yes, I'm aware. While Tor works as a privacy solution for the web, it lacks a proper incentive mechanism that would compensate node operators. I believe that a Blockchain-based VPN system will be much more sustainable in the long run because of the attractive rewards it'll provide to nodes themselves. While I agree that Blockchain isn't meant to be used for everything, it can be used as a separate financial layer for a decentralized VPN system. In other words, there will be two layers: the main layer will be the one in charge of encrypting and relaying traffic while the other layer will rely on Blockchain technology to reward node operators. This could become a truly decentralized VPN service that's completely P2P with no logging, etc. After all, traditional VPN services are attached to a company which brings the risk of a single point of failure.
Tor exists for 17 years already, and blockchain technology is still just vaporware, so how can you say that blockchain is more sustainable? And you don't need any financial incentives for Tor, it's been working great even without it, and financial incentives can even cause centralization, because it will bring bigger companies into the game. Plus blockchain's main goal it to store the data forever and without any changes, so it's inherently a risk for privacy. |
|
|
|
|
Who cares about smart contracts, they are not seriously used for anything beside demos and experimental apps, there's no need to rush to implement them (and rushing would only introduce bugs and vulnerabilities), it's better to wait and see if smart contracts will ever go mainstream, and only then implement them if it's really worth it. Ethereum will always have the first-mover advantage, you can't win this race against them.
|
|
|
|
Apps are the types of applications that are not owned by anybody or a single authority, they cannot be shut down and cannot also have downtime.
That's not always true, dapps are often managed by companies or teams of developers, they have some sort of centralized ownership in their contracts which allows the owners to shut it down and manipulate it in other ways. Dapps can also suffer from the problems of the underlying blockchain - we saw some pretty big congestions on the Ethereum network, which paralyzed the dapps running on it due to high fees and long confirmation times. |
|
|
|
Right, just hours after the news of India Supreme court on the decision, WRX, native token of Indian cryptocurrency WaRix is currently being pump right now. But we wanted to see the effect of the news to the whole crypto market, specially Bitcoin and not just on Indian based crypto exchanges.
So we will have to see what's going to happen in the next couple of days. Everyone is celebrating, not just our Indian crypto enthusiast, but those who support crypto globally.
There won't be any big effect on Bitcoin, if there could be one, it would have happened already, or maybe even before the news went public, because serious traders get their news before the press. I don't think there's any reason for a big pump of Bitcoin, India was always small in terms of adoption, mining, node count, etc. |
|
|
|
|
People say this every year - "this will be a big year for blockchain", "adoption is coming", but the actual stats show that majority of the companies don't want blockchain, and majority of the developers are very skeptical about it. These big companies that you mentioned can afford to blow some money on hyped things like blockchain because it may boost their stock or raise their publicity, so the fact that they talk about blockchain doesn't mean much to me.
|
|
|
|
|
I think the answer is simple - there's not much incentive right now to use LN for this type of transactions. They happen less frequently - once per week, they don't need to be instant and delays are a common occurrence, on-chain transaction fees are very low right now, and even if they were higher, it wouldn't be a big problem, because you can pay all participants in a single transaction, and transaction outputs add very little to the size. Plus a lot of campaigns (like the one we are both enrolled in) pay their participants to some sort of online account.
|
|
|
|
|
It's been 11 years, and people still sometimes talk how Bitcoin will soon solve poverty, economic problems, change society and now apparently it can even achieve world peace. But before anything like that can happen, Bitcoin needs to achieve some critical level of adoption - maybe 40-60% o the population, and we are still insanely far away from it. So, instead of dreaming about future greatness, it's better to focus on solving the current task.
|
|
|
|
|
Scams and gambling would be the biggest reasons to not introduce kids to this forum, if even adults often struggle with those and lose their hard-earned money, then what chance do the kids have? Even with fiat there's a ton of scummy people who target kids with apps and games that solicit payments, and kids these days know how to use their payments payment card.
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoiners were criticizing alts for being centralized for a long time - many of big alts are managed by companies, have some sort of supreme leaders, small amount of developers that can force any decisions on the network, inherently centralized network designs, etc. Bitcoin developers and community understand the dangers of centralization, and they always take measures to prevent it. We already saw an attempt to centralize Bitcoin with the SegWit2x fork, and you can see how it completely failed. So, if there won't be any fundamental shift in values, any new attempts would fail too.
|
|
|
|
There are newbies who are actually alt-accounts of experienced members. There are also some people who were working with crypto for quite a long time but only recently decided to join this forum. It's actually a poor example, seems like another useless text-spinner or plagiariser that posts "useful" topics. Better check the user nullius who isn't a newbie now, but was as knowledgeable as they are now from day 1. |
|
|
|
Anyone who believes BTC will thrive in a global cratering in its current position has spent too long reading r/bitcoin and nothing else. In a decade or two there might the glimmer of a possibility. Deffo not now.
And cash of course is not a great thing to be in long term, however it's not for the long term. All the same I wouldn't want to attempt to time it.
Indeed, people seem to confuse safe heavens with things like long-term hedge - safe heavens are meant to be used to wait out the panic and then go back to your previous positions. They aren't even supposed to be hugely profitable or profitable at all, they just need to not lose value too fast when the panic starts. So, if for example gold is down 1% while the stocks are down 7%, then gold is a safe heaven. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
