|
Let's see. $222 M seems like a massive amount, but in regards of total Tether value it's just a drop on a hot stone.
If purchases like this happen a few more times they may become more relevant.
If you think of it in economical terms, it becomes quite a mess, though. The whole crypto market got inflated at least to some degree by stable-coins. Them now investing back into Bitcoin is in a way similar to giving yourself a loan to buy more loans. Just an observation.
|
|
|
|
@OP: I haven't used that service myself (p2p) but I know people that have done so very successfully. I think it depends on where you live, how big the exchange-amount is, and if you can find a secure location and maybe someone to come along with you. Great resource. Glad to see Bisq as #1 in regards of DEX. Would have been my first recommendation. AgoraDesk was recommended to me several times, probably worth for you to check it out, too. |
|
|
|
got mine yesterday  love the COA! does anyone happen to know if ICG or some other grading company would slab these? I don't see why not as the dimensions seems work, but to be sure since it is square shaped, you can email ICG @ customersatisfaction@icgcoin.comInterested to hear if this would indeed work. Becuase if so, then the other non-square shaped HODL bars could also be submitted to grading if put into a squared slab with some foaming to keep it in place? Just wondering, cause I love these tiny bars but thought grading was not possible. |
|
|
|
I use coinomi from time to time to for low-value stuff, because it's a nice and convenient/quick option for android. However I would be careful, they tend to switch off coin support and stuff can turn out to become an issue - for example it wasn't really convenient to get XMR back from their wallet once it was suddenly not supported anymore. Also, it's closed source and that stuff should be avoided for higher-value transactions imho. |
|
|
|
/snip/
In short, let the economy talk and you'll see fees stabilizing soon.
You're probably right about fees coming down eventually, but let's not pretend that the problem doesn't exists. It doesn't take much to get the network congested and prohibitively high fees make it unusable for the average user. That's unless we assume Bitcoin is only for holding and doesn't have to be transacted.
Anybody knows what's the lead developers' view on ordinals and congestion? Do they recognise this as a problem or a feature? I'm a bit out of the loop on recent devs affairs. I agree regarding "doesn't take much to get congestion issues". Layer1 is just extremely limited in regards of data-capacity and a good scaling solution here is not on the horizon at all. Lightning will help (layer2), especially for mid/low-value-payments, but it's just one part of a difficult puzzle. However, right now, fees are at an almost reasonable level already and with 10 - 20 sat/byte most stuff goes through quite rapidly already. Regarding your other point: Yes, would be interested to hear it, too. What I heard so far: The system will sort itself out - which seems to have turned out as true already. I mean it does make sense: It costs a ton of money to put data on the Bitcoin-blockchain - not sustainable with the BS that 99% or ordinalcrap is anyway. |
|
|
|
|
Thanks for sharing some nice and balanced thoughts. I agree on your general sentiment and also regarding the idea that even 0.1 BTC could / would at some point in time be considered true wealth.
However I want to warn a little bit to be too optimistic regarding the short-mid term. Yes, chances are we can see another end of ATH 2024 to mid 2025. But maybe not. The current geoeconomical situation is as unstable as never before. Things are as complex and interconnected as never before. It's extremely hard to make accurate predictions for almost any kind of market these days and nobody knows how exactly Bitcoin will react if indeed a hefty world-economic crises emerges. Yes, Bitcoin could/should be a good hedge, but there is always some unknown variables.
Don't get me wrong, all I am saying is, never go all-in on anything, including Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
If you don't want to use a ballet wallet to sweep your funds on, I'd recommend you try electrum wallet. It's known to be very secure, it's open source and easy to use and at the same time has nice features, including signing messages and coin-control. It also supports mini-keys. Read all info here: https://bitcoinelectrum.com/sweeping-your-private-keys-into-electrum/ |
|
|
|
But something is in the works to make this an entirely trustless hobby where an event like this will never happen again...so stay tuned.
Looking forward to it. Didn't mean to kick you guys when your down, just getting sick of seeing these type things and was drinking a little.  *old man shakes fist at cloud. Thanks and happens to the best of us....but what is with the small font that I can barely see and became only aware of it when I quoted your text . LOL Hidden messages....  Ha, thanks for the apology, your initial message had me steeming for a few seconds. Truth hits the most I guess. Anyway, I think all collectors here are very aware of the contradicton of physical crypto. And Yogg helped me (and many others) to be reminded of this paradox again. Yes, it contradicts Bitcoin's fundamental idea by adding a massive trust element. The idea of a funded collectible, that can theoretically be passed down generations and handed over in person in the physical world is just something very appealing. Combnine this with a rare metal (silver, gold) and you get such a cool piece. Trust me, it's a great conversation starter even with the most annoying crypto-sceptics. I think as long as you are aware of the risks and understand that a loaded crypto collectible is very far from what Bitcoin actually stands for, you are good to go. |
|
|
|
Here's a crazy idea. Rather than embedding stupid jpegs in the witness data, what about embedding solidity scripts? The capabilities of Bitcoin could potentially be expanded tremendously. Opinions?
Great idea but why not directly embed a *solid* language in your few transaction-bytes instead, like c++ for example. Jokes aside, as already pointed out as long as which-ever-language is not part of the Bitcoin protocol, nothing will happen.  And hopefully onchain program code (aside from the few op-return commands) will never be a thing with Bitcoin. No need for another turing-complete megachain. Just sidechain that shit or use a normal centralized server, which is probably the better solution in 99.9% of cases anyway. |
|
|
|
Has anyone else peeled? How did it go?
My private key seems to be invalid. Importing in coinomi as well as desktop electrum wallet failes - import/sweep is just skipped without any error message popping up.
Any suggestions?
I swept mine no issues. I used Ballet. Ah, that would have been my next attempt. It did work, I left electrum open and running for ~20 minutes, the transaction did eventually show up. Sorry for the fuss. Anyone receive a replacement-bill yet? I am still considering if I want to that (it's a very generous offer, no doubt) or keep the original-"original". While kept in the protective cover it's barely noticeable at all that the private key area was opened. |
|
|
|
|
Has anyone else peeled? How did it go?
My private key seems to be invalid. Importing in coinomi as well as desktop electrum wallet failes - import/sweep is just skipped without any error message popping up.
Any suggestions?
Edit: Worked with electrum after ~15 minutes. Before that no tx showed up. *phew*
|
|
|
|
update  Goddamn, this is more tense than a Agatha Christie novel on its final pages. Kidden aside, I really hope I can peel in time. Just got back and now getting rid of the last remaining scamkey funds which I foooolishly kept. If he does indeed peel remaining cryptobonds before 790416 block hits, I kind of slowly feel in the mood for a nice little Paris trip.  |
|
|
|
|
Thanks for creating and providing this script. If it works it will spare me hours upon hours - much appreciated.
Will be able to try out in 2 days and then report back on how it went.
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the info and provided links. Suprised to see it was indeed back in 2010. Did anything similar occure many years later by chance? "While the transaction does not exist anymore, the 0.5 BTC that was consumed by it does. It appears to have come from a faucet and has not been used since." (from https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Value_overflow_incident) Not sure if I am getting this corretly - did indeed some BTC (0.5) of this malicious block end up on the current blockchain? How is that possible if the original mined transaction was made void during a fork? [...] - The bug was fixed in Bitcoin Core version 0.3.10. The fix involved modifying the code to use a larger data type (64-bit integer) for handling transaction values, preventing similar overflow issues in the future.
[...] The oldest Bitcoin core version on Github is 0.10.0 - where did you get your info from? |
|
|
|
The longer fork represents the consensus of the network, as it has accumulated more computational work and has a greater number of participants supporting it. This is not correct. As I explained above, the longest chain does not necessarily contain the most accumulated work. I could fork bitcoin right now, drop the difficulty to 1, and then churn out 10,000 blocks in a few minutes. My new chain would be far longer than the main chain, but have much less accumulated work because the number of hashes required to generate all 10,000 of my blocks would only be tiny fraction of the number of hashes to generate a single block on the main chain. The main chain, although shorter, would have the higher amount of work, and so everyone else would stay on that chain and not switch to my longer chain. By choosing the longer fork, miners align themselves with the majority, reducing the risk of their blocks being orphaned or invalidated in the future. No, they do this by aligning themselves with the chain with most work, which again, is not the same as the longest chain. That's a greate explanation and a pretty crucial point. So a difficulty comparison is done every time by just checking the zeros in front of the latest blockhash? Reading about the accidental-fork-by-miners issue, I remember there was one instance, maybe already 10 years ago, when this happened 6 or seven times in a row. It then became apparent that there was a bug causing this. Need to look up what happened there exactly. |
|
|
|
Not sure where to post this, but general discussion seems too unspecific. I remember a few years ago (probably 4+ already) I read about a bug in Bitcoin Core that, if exploited, would have allowed for the creation of unlimited coins. It was reported and fixed before any malicious abuse could take place. I found this article: https://news.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-history-part-10-the-184-billion-btc-bug/But I thought it was something that happend much more recently (like I said, maybe 4 or 5, 6 years ago). Back then I was suprised I didn't read more news about it. Now I am starting to wonder if I imagined things and tried a quick search because I would love to know some technical facts about what actually happened. Hard to find so far... |
|
|
|
It is excellent. Innovative and smart. It will help BTC's adoption. Haters gonna hate. But this is going to skyrocket.
What exactly is going to skyrocket? Ordinals or BTC itself? The latter, yes. Ordinals will stay a strange niche and maybe, just maybe, get a FOMO bump every once in while. But probably only for very few tokens, probably shilled by insinders anyway. So no, it's neither excellent nor smart. Innovative, slightly, it's just an exploit for something that was never intended as a data storage for such things. Zooming out in time a bit I think the ordinal stuff will turn out to be a minor glitch,. One of the many tiny hick-ups the Bitcoin network experienced over the years with not much impact in general. |
|
|
|
"Bitcoin is dead." I knew it! Not sure, but to call this article news is kind of an insult to true journalism and real news. It summarizes some of the not so new issues including network congestion and the usual some-regulation-here and-there-stuff. I am truely wondering, does this sort of article create any value for anyone? It's not particularily bad, just standard with some real info. But nothing that would/should influence any sort of action from individuals as well as companies, right? Just an example: "While it is yet unclear the catalyst for today’s sharp drop, the volatility is to be expected given the current state of liquidity, especially after larger market maker Jane Street and Jump Crypto revealed they were winding down their crypto exposure,” Medalie said." It's so generic and a similar sentence could with some slight variant probably be repeated every month or so. /end of rant
|
|
|
|
First things first, I have pretty average memory, I don't forget important things too often, but I also can't instantly memorize things to the tiniest details like some gifted people can.
Around 5 years ago I decided to memorize my wallet seeds to have one extra backup method. My main backups are pieces of paper + a flash drive with wallet files.
I memorized all 4 wallet seeds (12 words each) that I have very quickly by rehearsing them from memory and checking with the written down seeds every day. For a long time, maybe 1-2 years I kept discipline and repeated the seeds every day, but eventually I started slipping and forgetting to do it, especially if I was busy with something. This affected my memory, and sometimes I forgot or wasn't sure about parts of a seed (2-4 words) so I had to look at it again and repeat it more often.
Interesting thing about memory, it's easier for me to repeat them in the sequence that I was always repeating (seed 1 -> seed 2 -> seed 3 -> seed 4) than to repeat only one seed that isn't the first. Also I can't repeat the words starting from non-first word or in an order that isn't original. So to me it's more like keeping in memory one big 48-word seed than having 4 seeds of 12 words each.
So in summary, I think memorizing a seed is easier than most people think, and there's no need to come up with songs or rhymes or other stuff, they can probably even make things worse. But in general memory is not reliable, even in long term, so this shouldn't be viewed as a reliable backup. It's just a nice extra layer of backup that doesn't require any complicated setup, and its strongest upside is that it's always with you (until your memory fails).
Interesting topic. There is a lot of science based data on how to ideally memorize things, it's a multi-layered topic which for the best effect includes a combination of several methods. I wrote some of this down a while ago, let me check and maybe I can post some info on it here. One of these concepts is ORDER, so it makes total sense it was easier to remember all 4 phrases instead of one from the middle of the pack. Regarding memorized seeds: Totally agree, don't solely rely on it - instead, if you can, use it as an additional way of "storing" your seed phrase. The only viable method to solely rely on it would be short to medium term - for example to get funds out of an oppressive country without any hardware/solid (paper etc) evidence. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
