|
People, groups, and channels that provide "signals" are typically promoting pump-and-dump scams. They are trying to get people to buy a coin so that they can sell the coin at a profit.
|
|
|
|
The Original S2F model is likely flawed, and should be correctly replaced by the S2F-G model.
Can you demonstrate that your new model is not also flawed? |
|
|
|
|
I went to the 2013 and 2021 conferences, and both were definitely worth it.
I didn't go to the 2022 and don't plan on going to the 2023 conferences because they have become too big.
|
|
|
|
|
Any idiot can fit any model to any curve with a sufficient number of variables. You are so convinced that the failed Stock-to-Flow model must be correct that you are willing to add a brand new variable to "fix" it, without any kind of explanation or justification.
What you have done is create a model that is based on nothing, and so it predicts nothing.
|
|
|
|
Here we have interesting commentary on the trend of americans living abroad in foreign countries, in an effort to reduce living costs. Americans have been flocking to places like puerto rico to enjoy the benefits of paying 4% income taxes.
It's not clear, but it appears that you have a misconception shared by many Americans. Puerto Rico is not a "foreign country". Puerto Rico is part of the United States. |
|
|
|
I have a question about copyright and IP law infringement consisting of NFTs. Can you just make an NFT from a painting that you have painted from an image from the google database, even if you have "copy" painted it yourself with maybe some differences in color, size etc. Or may you only use / combine unlicensed images or paintings. I am seriously looking for someone who can tell me more about this before I start minting content.
An NFT associated with an image is not the image itself. So, when you buying or selling an NFT, you are not buying or selling the image. You are buying or selling a token. If you display a copy of an image to sell the NFT and you don't have the right to use the image, then you are probably violating copyright law. Making an imperfect or altered copy of an image probably still violates the law though there are exceptions. IANAL |
|
|
|
Deflation Inflation generates a vicious circle. Prices go down up, profits tend to go down with them and the economy suffers the rich get richer and a lot of people lose their jobs or have to accept lower inadequate wages. So people have less demand more money, so they consume less lead to reduce demand prices increase. Therefore, deflation is no more dangerous than inflation. Because eventually, production, investment, employment and GDP take significant hit.
FTFY |
|
|
|
That implies that Bitcoin can solve every problem, or that there is only one problem that needs to be solved. Both are unrealistic. I implied that every cryptocurrency gives solution to the same problem, that is double-spending, other features asides. I see. Your point is that cryptocurrency should only do one thing -- be a simple money. That seems like a good point, but it could also be short-sighted. Also, keep in mind that Bitcoin has already been extended to be more than just a simple money. If I have a good idea, I can implement it now, or I can hope that Bitcoin might be able to support it some day. Or you can implement it now, but instead of new currency, you can utilize the already existent. Do you want to add smart contracts that can't be implemented on Bitcoin blockchain? Make a sidechain (e.g., rsk). Your rules, but not your currency. The foundations of bitcoin are invaluable. Part of the ingenious technology is the stable, scheduled, human-resistant monetary policy. If it were that easy or even that practical, it would have been done years ago. I think the idea is approaching wishful thinking. It may happen someday, but other coins already have a huge advantage. According to CMC, there are 20,000 cryptocurrencies. Apparently 20,000 is not abundant enough to nullify the whole money concept. How many does it take? So point me to merchants that accept more than 10, 20, 50. I thought your point was that a cryptocurrency can't be a money if there is an abundance of them. Is Bitcoin then doomed, or was that not your point? |
|
|
|
...because having multiple currencies that thrive to give a solution to the same problem is somewhat against the ideals.
That implies that Bitcoin can solve every problem, or that there is only one problem that needs to be solved. Both are unrealistic. Answer me this: We have an idea. We can write code to implement that idea. It's something bitcoin isn't currently capable of doing due to consensus limit, and would require a hard fork (e.g., turing completeness, ring signatures, block size increase). But, what you'll be working on, is still money. So, you have two options; make that currency backed-by / based-on bitcoin or don't.
Can you justify why you'd choose the latter over the former?
If I have a good idea, I can implement it now, or I can hope that Bitcoin might be able to support it some day. The choice seems clear to me. Do it now. If it fails, then maybe you can try again if Bitcoin ever gets around to supporting it. If it doesn't fail, then you have succeeded. It appears to me that crypto coins are scarce, but cryptocurrencies abundant, which nullifies the whole money concept.
According to CMC, there are 20,000 cryptocurrencies. Apparently 20,000 is not abundant enough to nullify the whole money concept. How many does it take? |
|
|
|
The Forbes methodology for discounting bitcoin trading volume follows a series of steps.
Regulation. We identify crypto licenses and from what regulatory body that each exchange possesses and use that as proxy to gauge their level of sophistication and intent to deter wash trades and publishing fake volume.
Third-party input. We considered the work of select third parties such as volume data from CoinMarketCap, CoinGecko, Nomics and Messari. Messari’s volume statistics are less extensive by pairs, and it has fewer exchanges than its peers, but it has its own real-volume calculations. Forbes tracked in recent months how Messari applied a volume discount ranging from 40% to 65% to Binance volume, compared with the averages reported by CoinMarketCap, CoinGecko and Nomics at the time. Messari also discounts the trading volume of FTX by a lesser percentage (less than 20%) and that of Kraken by 99%. With regards to this latter, Forbes doesn’t share the view of applying a heavy discount to a firm that is among the most regulated crypto exchanges in the world. Most exchanges going through the Messari real volume analysis, however, lack any type of volume discount.
Web traffic. Forbes employs third-party data from web analytics firm SimilarWeb to heavily discount the volume of firms claiming a high trading volume without having sufficient crypto licenses and web traffic to generate such volume.
Forbes interviews. Forbes has conducted dozens of interviews of senior executives at major crypto exchanges to supplement quantitative information on a firm’s profile.
As you can see, other than the web traffic analysis, their numbers are entirely subjective. |
|
|
|
|
It seems to me that there is a range of Bitcoin Maxis. There are those who believe that Bitcoin will always naturally dominate as other coins fade into obscurity. And, there are those that believe that anything other than Bitcoin is a scam.
I think that Maxis generally feel threatened by other projects. I think a lot of it is because they have put money into bitcoins and they naturally don't want any other coins to succeed at Bitcoin's expense. I think the worst Maxis are the tribalists who identify so strongly as a Bitcoiner that they must defend Bitcoin by spreading lies and FUD (based on their own ignorance) about other projects.
I am not a Maxi. I believe that Bitcoin is the strongest and safest cryptocurrency. But some coins, such as Ethereum and Monero, provide benefits that Bitcoin may never be able to provide, and there is room for multiple currencies (as determined by the market, of course).
I think Pete Rizzo's description of Bitcoin Maximalism is too generous and does not accurately reflect the beliefs of Bitcoin Maximalists.
|
|
|
|
Hi, I am learning about crypto and crypto development for a hobby, and I am having a problem grasping some concepts, one of those is the validation system, I know that when you log in into metamask (for example) it hashes your 12 words and identifies you whit the hash that it corresponds, but who does this? I mean who hashes your 12 words? if it's done in the blockchain nodes wouldn't it means it's public for everyone to see? or if you do it yourself couldn't you just lie?
In short: Where does the hashing of your password occur so it doesn't get stolen and can't get "faked"?
The 12 words are not a password. They are the source of your private keys. Anyone with the 12-word phrase will have the keys that are generated by that phrase. That is why you must keep the phrase secret. The password (and not the 12-word phrase) that you enter into a wallet is used to encrypt and decrypt the data stored by the wallet, which includes your 12-word phrase. (or just the "seed" derived from it). Ok, but if the math is done on my end, couldn't I just lie and say that I make the hash and the result is X public key?. I am sure there is a way to ensure that I dont lie on my end, but not sure how it works.
If I am understanding correctly:
You send to the nodes of the blockchain a signature that is the public key, they know that it is you because the only way you got that public key is by hashing the 12 word seed related to that key. But how do they ensure that you actually hashed the 12 words and not just look in the public blockchain for a random public key, and just send that, assuming you replicate the answer your machine produces when you log in and hash the 12 words but changing the result of that hash for a fake one, once again I am not doubting that there is a logical explanation for why this is not possible, I am genuinely curious about how they manage to fix this problem.
To spend bitcoins at an address, your transaction must provide a valid signature. The signature contains the public key that the address is generated from and is it created using the private key associated with that public key. It is not possible to fake a public key because it won't match the address. It is not possible to fake a private key because it won't match the public key. An address is a hash of a public key that is associated with a private key. A private key is generated using the seed phrase (the 12-word phrase). It is not possible to obtain a public key from an address. It is not possible to obtain a private key from a public key. If I generate a new account on metamask:
-My computer ask metamask for 12 words at random
-My computer then proceeds to apply some math to the 12 words thus hashing those 12 words into a public key and a private key
-Then My computer goes to the blockchain and identifies itself whit this public key, it doesn't identify itself whit the private key, because in the blockchain everything is public so it wouldn't make sense to show it in public.
-Next time I log in, My computer makes the math to the 12 words I feed it, and comes whit the same public key to identify itself in the blockchain
A wallet only "goes to the blockchain" when publishing or searching for transactions. A block chain only contains transactions. There is no identification process. The 12-word phrase is your identity and you prove it by encrypting information with your private keys (creating a "signature"), and others verify it by decrypting the signature with your public keys. |
|
|
|
|
Seven Samurai (1954) - plot: A village hires a group of samurai to defend them against raiding bandits.
This movie is considered to be one of the greatest Japanese films. It was directed by Akira Kurosawa, considered to be one of the greatest directors. It has plenty of action, humor, and drama. The Magnificent Seven is a famous American remake of this movie set in the American West.
Sunset Boulevard(1950) - plot: A struggling screenwriter stumbles upon the mansion of a forgotten silent movie idol and ultimately becomes her gigolo. The movie shows the events leading to his death.
This is a dark creepy drama. It ends badly for everyone. I like this film because it does a great job of bringing out the complexities of the main characters, contrasting their eccentricities and delusions against the other characters.
Dr. Strangelove (1964) - plot: A deranged American general initiates a nuclear attack against the Soviet Union.
This is a very entertaining dark comedy about pathetic politics, bumbling bureaucracy, and a mixed-up military leading to the end of the world. The movie stars Peter Seller, who plays three different characters, George C. Scott, Slim Pickens, and Sterling Hayden. It is directed by Stanley Kubrick.
|
|
|
|
My passwords are up to 64 random letters, numbers, and symbols, and I have a different one for each login. I use a password manager to generate and store them. I think that is the best solution. https://keepass.info/download.html |
|
|
|
|
I use JoinMarket. It is an implementation of CoinJoin. I run the "yield generator" so that other people can mix my coins with theirs. I am in complete control of my coins. There is no reliance on a third party and I don't have to trust anyone. Running the yield generator is completely free, but you have to run a node..
|
|
|
|
Now, assuming that cnt is never less than 0, cnt can never be 0 after incrementing it.
Of course it can. Have you never heard of wrap-around? Try incrementing 2^32-1 or 2^64-1. Of course, there is wrap around, but the possibility of a number wrapping around is itself also generally an indicator of a bug. |
|
|
|
The relevant code is: ...
cnt++;
...
if (cnt == 0) {
...
}
...
The code cnt++; adds 1 to the value of cnt. The code if (cnt == 0) { checks if the value of cnt is 0, and executes the code that follows if it is. Now, assuming that cnt is never less than 0, cnt can never be 0 after incrementing it. The result is that the code following the check is never executed. Including code that is never executed is typically done by mistake. |
|
|
|
|
In my view, inflation and deflation are equal but opposite.
Inflation encourages spending and investing, but discourages saving and lending. Deflation encourages saving and lending, but discourages spending and investing.
Inflation promotes medium-of-exchange at the expense of store-of-value. Deflation promotes store-of-value at the expense of medium-of-exchange.
High inflation is bad and so is high deflation. Low inflation is not as bad, and so is low deflation. 0 is best.
The risks of low deflation leading to a deflationary spiral are no worse than low inflation leading to an inflationary spiral.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
