Perhaps this is the only thing that can raise the price of DOGE.
And I would say not for long given it is (or at least was, I haven't looked in quite a while) continually inflating. |
|
|
|
The chief banker at the bank for central banks, Agustín Carstens, cast doubt on bitcoin’s long-term viability Wednesday, saying it was only a matter of time before a 51% attack brings down the world’s original cryptocurrency.
...“Above all, investors must be cognizant that Bitcoin may well break down altogether. Scarcity and cryptography alone do not suffice to guarantee exchange,” he said.
...
“So, clearly, if digital money is to exist, the central bank must play a pivotal role, guaranteeing the stability of value, ensuring the elasticity of the aggregate supply of such money, and overseeing the overall security of the system,” he said.
https://www.coindesk.com/agustin-carstens-bitcoinPerhaps he should (a) be more cognizant about what he is putting into his mouth (it isn't healthy) and (b) what is coming out of it when he clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. My suggestion would be that he read more prior to pontificating. He clearly has a not-so hidden agenda. |
|
|
|
https://www.coindesk.com/agustin-carstens-bitcoinThe chief banker at the bank for central banks, Agustín Carstens, cast doubt on bitcoin’s long-term viability Wednesday, saying it was only a matter of time before a 51% attack brings down the world’s original cryptocurrency.
...“Above all, investors must be cognizant that Bitcoin may well break down altogether. Scarcity and cryptography alone do not suffice to guarantee exchange,” he said.
...
This part was particularly rich: “So, clearly, if digital money is to exist, the central bank must play a pivotal role, guaranteeing the stability of value, ensuring the elasticity of the aggregate supply of such money, and overseeing the overall security of the system,” he said.
Perhaps he should (a) be more cognizant about what he is putting into his mouth (it isn't healthy) and (b) what is coming out of it when he clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. My suggestion would be that he read more prior to pontificating.
|
|
|
|
Do NOT click on any links in the emails as they will probably attempt to load malware on your system!
Then tag them as spam so they go into your spam folder to eventually be deleted.
I doubt it's what you said, nothing to do with malware. It's a phising attempt, they are trying to obtain usernames and passwords to access anything that can be related to OP (Wallets, exchanges, emails, accounts). Just declare it as spam and be done with it, ignore any further emails that you may receive in the future. Spam it for sure. It could easily be a malware link. So don't visit it from any device. Even from your phone it might not have been safe - in fact yesterday's iOS 14.4 release patched to fix at least one code escalation bug that might have been exploited, and a webkit vulnerability that could allow arbitrary code execution. Always avoid those type of spammy links. (You could use something like VirtualBox to check them out, but that is overkill if you know it is fake. Just spam it.) |
|
|
|
It will never hit $1m in the future. That is what you would expect an 8 yo kid to ask.
People were saying it wouldn't hit $1 and then $10, and then $100 and then $1000 and then $10000 and then $40000. So unless you have a crystal ball, I wouldn't say something like that because you are just repeating the same mistakes that have been repeated for more than a decade now. |
|
|
|
|
Good news!
The fees at GBTC seem excessive and competition will only help both fees to decrease, but also lockups and the premium people were willing to pay to buy GBTC. If the SEC would stop being such luddites, they could resolve the issue quite quickly by just approving the ETF.
|
|
|
|
|
No. Not right now. Maybe in another order of magnitude or two it will be close to a fiat <-> bitcoin stabilization point.
One is an asset, one is something that immediately depreciates.
|
|
|
|
I don't know what will happen, but tether and other centralized parts of the crypto scene are vulnerable to big government authoritarian policies much more so than bitcoin. If one didn't have to worry about control freaks in government, things would be much better.
Stablecoins such as Tether are vulnerable to authoritarian action, because unlike the case with Bitcoin or Ethereum, they are not decentralized. The authorities can seize Tether assets and make that token completely worthless. And there will be big impact on the cryptocurrency market. If Tether is not safe, then none of the stablecoins are safe. Trading will come to a halt, especially in jurisdictions where fiat currency is not permitted for trading (such as China). And indications are that USDT will be the next target after XRP. Exactly. Anything with a central entity - be it person, small group, corporation, developer, miner etc - in a position of power is vulnerable to authoritarian control. Look at ripple. There are probably some jurisdictions that they might be safer than others from over regulation, but they are few and far between. e.g. online casinos in Antigua, others in Cook Islands, Panama etc. |
|
|
|
@Sithara007. My biggest concern is the Democrats might attack and takedown where they can also hurt the whole cryptospace. Tether.
There are a few people in here who are certain that bitcoin will pump if Tether was taken down because they would exit Tether by buying bitcoin hehe. This is comedy.
I don't know what will happen, but tether and other centralized parts of the crypto scene are vulnerable to big government authoritarian policies much more so than bitcoin. If one didn't have to worry about control freaks in government, things would be much better. |
|
|
|
I love it. This is the way to point out the issues with OP's post. It is very easy to speak in grand generalities but when one has to be specific, and put up real money, it certainly sharpness and forces one to crystallize the position. It reminds me of the innumerable discussions about "needing bitcoin to expire if not moved for X years". No one has had a successful fork that incorporates those provisions because they are idiotic. This sounds similar where a simple request stops the nonsense. The odds that all the countries will do this is infinitesimal because there is competition. Would Russia cooperate with China or the US or Europe or Central or South America or Africa or Asia to do this? No, they want to beggar they neighbor and competition will help keep them semi-honest. (Well, at least somewhat honest with regard to bitcoin, nothing else.) . . .The price of Bitcoin would get killed completely, you would be looking at Bitcoin below $1000. . .
Silly rabbit. People have been saying this nonsense for more than 10 years. I can prove that even you don't believe it. Let's make a bet. You are CONFIDENT that this will happen in the " NEAR FUTURE". I assume that "near future" means less than 2 years? So, how about a bet of $2000 USD? I bet that the U.S., Canada, Mexico, or any country in the European Union will NOT pass a law before Jan 1, 2023 which demands any jail time or a fine of more than the equivalent of $100 USD for any private citizen solely for the acts of sending, receiving, or holding Bitcoin. Notes, this doesn't apply to: - "using Bitcoin to launder illegally acquired cash". That law already exists.
- "Using Bitcoin in the activities of a Money Service Business without a license" That law already exists.
- "Failing to report transactions of high value to the appropriate reporting agency" That law already exists.
- "Using Bitcoin in the act of fraud or theft" That law already exists.
- Or any thing else which is already illegal without Bitcoin
This bet specifically applies to a NEW law that applies not to a business or other non-person legal entity but rather to individual citizens. Your click-bait subject line says that this is a High possibility, so this should be an easy bet for you to win, right? EDIT: If you accept this bet, I'm happy to digitally sign a statement of agreement to the bet as well as place $2000 worth of bitcoin (or whatever smaller amount you wish if you aren't willing to bet $2000) into escrow with a trusted third-party member of this forum. |
|
|
|
Hehe it was Trump who was ok for bitcoin. What he says about his stance on bitcoin might be negative, however, his policies never went out of their way for a clear takedown of the cryptospace. it was the trump administration who just tried to sneak through horrible crypto regulations at the last second---namely, the "travel rule" (KYC on $250+ cross-border transactions) proposal and the "self-hosted wallet" proposal. the former is horrible on its face. the latter will result in this: If you're using Bitstamp, now might be a good time to ditch it.Bitstamp exchange crazy new KYCbiden might end up being worse for crypto, but fuck trump. The crypto regulations that they floated in December were just stupid, it seemed like someone trying to slip something in while they could and while Trump was occupied with other concerns. Biden will be worse for bitcoin and crypto, and liberty. One often has to take the best of the possible choices vs hoping for the perfect choice. |
|
|
|
|
The analysts definitely have 20/20 hindsight. It is the same in regular financial markets, by the time the analysts are saying buy, you've missed much of the opportunity.
I firmly believe that 95% of them have one goal: not to make any call that could get them fired even if it means just being average.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin plunged more than 10% Thursday, sparking a hunt for reasons the notoriously volatile asset was selling off. One that captured attention questioned the very viability of the token itself -- though it turned out not to be cause for concern. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-21/bitcoin-plunge-has-newbies-scrambling-to-google-double-spendPlease tell me it is all fake!  This is hilarious! I mean, come on, this is 2021! Noobs please go and use Ethereum, EOS, Tezos, Polkadot, whatever you like. Leave us bitcoin, for god's sake! It is not for you I think I have it all figured out, thanks for the answer! maybe you could help me get the hang of it here, where should I start learning? Just start reading. Of course, much depends on your focus: are you looking for developer information, user information, news, discussions, trading info (in my opinion, a bad idea, better to just buy and wait) or something else? And whatever you do, if you have a private key, never share it with anyone. Likewise, there will be people wanting to get people involved in what are likely Ponzi schemes - if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin has struggled to maintain its momentum in the second half of January after its huge start to the year.
The bitcoin price has flatlined (even as other, smaller cryptocurrencies continue to soar) as fears mount about a swelling bitcoin bubble.
Now, with excitement building ahead of a hotly-anticipated virtual "bitcoin corporate strategy" summit in the first week of February, a record near-$4 billion worth of bitcoin options are set to expire this Friday, January 29. https://www.forbes.com/sites/billybambrough/2021/01/25/bitcoin-is-braced-for-a-huge-4-billion-price-earthquake-this-week/Nobody, and I repeat, nobody cared about the bitcoin options expiring in December, November, October 2020 but now that the nothingness around what to write has come, these options become the new discussion topic in town. Okay. "Come and click on the ads in our article" "bitcoin price has flatlined" - given today, that is inaccurate....the article is past its expiration date already. :-) |
|
|
|
Nevermind the broken link posted by the OP. I think he was talking about an old discussion on this forum from a user name Josef Hoffman which claimed to be an investigative journalist and also claimed to have fish out the real Satoshi and the last time only a naive will believe whatever he said after some many claims from different people to be the real Satoshi. If you are thirst for what Hoffman said you can visit his Twitter accountIf we satoshi wanted his/her identity to be public, I think that satoshi could have done that a long time ago. I don't think it will be easy for an investigative journalist to uncover the true identity of satoshi, remember that this satoshi that they are looking for is the creator of bitcoin and I do not think that satoshi will be sloppy with his/her cyber trail, satoshi could have fake the English vocabulary and have his/her geolocation scrambled. Exactly. And s/he/they haven't moved any coins from the early mining, but does anyone rational think that he stopped mining then? No doubt they've moved and used coins that were mined later without the telltale signs. In all likelihood one could deduce a few things from that to aid in tracking, but given I wouldn't want to assist anyone in trying to find someone who clearly doesn't want to be found right now. |
|
|
|
If you want a currency with an expiration date, feel free to create one. Doing so will necessarily expose you to the fact that most people won't want something that will expire at a certain date and trade it for something of value that doesn't expire. If enough people agree with you that it is a good idea, they'll join you, but in all likelihood few people who consider the impacts will not. In my country during the year 2016, 8th November the government announced currencies with highest denomination like 1000₹ and 500₹ won't be valued anymore. People are supposed to reach the banks and exchange it to any other denomination. In the event of this people suffered much, because there is no money to spend and banks were full of crowd. More than 100 lost their live standing in queue. Whats the reason for such an immediate decision ? The government stated it a reason to fight illegal funding to terrorism and recove the black money. If there is validity or expiry for every currency same as day to day life needs, then people will make use of it and exchange to new currencies at the right time. This way everything can be made to be in circulation rather than getting accumulated for years. Here black money can also be avoided. |
|
|
|
So it was Cointelegraph, which spread the fake news? If that was the case, then I am not surprised. They have a habit of dishing out fake news. But their fake news and clickbait articles were largely ignored by the community, as they had such a terrible reputation. So what changed now? Why so many people took them seriously this time around? Anyway, such corrections are good for the cryptocurrency market. It will make sure that the noobs sell their BTC and make their exit. We don't need them here.
It was CT who did some, but BitMEXResearch didn't do anyone any favors when they said: "It appears as if a small double spend of around 0.00062063 BTC ($21) was detected" ( https://twitter.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1351856488252399618 ) Calling it a double spend was irresponsible because it was an RBF and there was no double spend recorded in the block chain. It was really a non-event and by them stating there was "a small double spend" was just idiotic. Sure, they clarified things later, but they need to be accurate to be taken seriously. If they had said "It appears as if a small RBF of around 0.00062063 BTC ($21) was detected between the two forks" it would've been smarter and more responsible. My thought on it is if they are as experienced as they claim, they should know to be precise. :-) |
|
|
|
Double spend has a well defined meaning, so BitMEXResearch saying there was a double spend is wrong too. If double spend means the second one above then every RBF is a double spend and their never was a "double spend" problem to solve. in this case there was a block reorganization, so a confirmed transaction (1 confirmation) was dropped from the blockchain and a conflicting transaction was mined instead. that doesn't apply to every RBF transaction. ... Agreed of course, but every reorg drops every transaction from the losing block which then may be, or may not be, included in the winning block or subsequent blocks. Likewise every RBF transaction that works replaces another transaction, just ones that could have been in the mempool or in a block like this one. The confluence of both here then being called "a successful double spend" is the issue when by its very nature the block chain prevents double spending. Anyway, I agree with what you are saying. And 1 confirmation is always somewhat risky. Ditto zero confirmations. |
|
|
|
I am just blown away how someone not knowing how bitcoin works with regard to double spends and re-orgs can start stupid stuff like that can be ever taken seriously again. BitMEX Research saying "It appears as if a small double spend of around..."[*1] One of the stupidest groups claiming to be experts, says something like that? My heavens they don't even know what a double spend is. That isn't a double spend and yet their tweet says it is.
andreas antonopoulos did have this to say in their defense: https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/1352285439621664768For those screaming at @BitMEXResearch:
Wrong target. BitMEX offers a useful service that monitors for re-orgs. They are the messenger who said the right thing. Re-direct your ire at @Cointelegraph who "reported" sensationalist drivel and those who amplified it. i suppose people use the term "double spend" in two different ways. one is at the protocol level and would mean the same coins could be spent/confirmed twice---obviously not the case here. the other is from the perspective of a transaction recipient who is sent inputs that are re-spent and confirmed in a conflicting transaction. Hi, I did see that, but andreas antonopoulos is just wrong in this case. Double spend has a well defined meaning, so BitMEXResearch saying there was a double spend is wrong too. If double spend means the second one above then every RBF is a double spend and their never was a "double spend" problem to solve. This would likewise mean that every reorg would also involve "double spends" just that most of these so-called double spends would be spend to the same address. It was just stupid on BitMEXResearch's part to use the term double spend in the way they did when it was a perfectly normal event which happens all the time in the mempool and can happen like this until there are sufficient confirmations. 😀. They are supposedly experts and should be precise in what they are saying to avoid this kind of nonsense FUD. I agree that some people have used "double spend" incorrectly when they want to say "attempted double spend" or "attempt to replace one low fee transaction with another by spending the same bitcoins again in a higher fee transaction." To me using double spend for a successful RBF transaction is stupid and irresponsible. In short, their phrasing was bad and people who reported "there was a double spend" were even worse. |
|
|
|
I would like to explain why it is almost impossible to find the private key from public key, in a simple and different way, although it seems very confusing.
modular arithmetic is the easiest way to understand this.
x mod (y) = z
x = private key
mod (y) = 256-sha algorithm
z = public key
8 mod (7) = 1 and in all cases 8 will result in 1. But if we know 1(z), trillions of alternatives have to be tried to reach 8. 15,22,29,36,43,50 ......... these all yield 1 with respect to mod 7. Therefore, while reaching the public key from the private key takes place in milliseconds, it is impossible to access the private key from the public key.
Of course, the background of the event is more complicated, I simply wanted to explain it in a different way.
How about: given the one way hash function, it is akin to having a huge piece of paper with a photo (or writing) on it and putting it through an atomic shredder. It is easy to go from paper to atoms, but it would be nearly impossible to go from atoms to paper configuration you had before. Sure you possible *could* do it, but it would likely take billions of times more years than are left in the universe. You could repeat the process with as many duplicates of the original as you wanted and get the same results, but going from atoms to paper wouldn't get any easier. (Merely explaining how a hash function works, e.g. SHA, not all the details in bitcoin) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
