Pi does not allow any one to have have multiple accounts. Pi wants to remove out the multiple and bots accounts. For this purpose Pi is doing KYC (Know your customer). Since multiple accounts and bots account cannot be verified by KYC, these accounts and their Pi will be burnout, is clearly mentioned by the core team of Pi.
But this will take time. Since only 100000 slots are available for KYC verification in a month, legitimacy of more than 13 M users will also take time. This burning is only possible after the verification of all legitimate users. Core team is developing different techniques for KYC verification. Are all these a part of a hoax? Or it sounds fake as it is path-breakingly easy? If millions of users are willing to provide their personal information to get KYC'd on a mobile platform, which is what Pi really is. I don't know why they keep holding this pretense of a blockchain. If all those users get KYC'd, then that by itself grants value to the owners of that data. Keep in mind that its not the millions of so-called "pioneers" who own that data. I think it is all just a privacy risk for a few worthless tokens. There are plenty of other opportunities in the crypto space where you can earn money by doing legit work rather than clicking on a link everyday and doing "mining" and adding your friends and relatives onto a mobile application. If there was any doubt in your mind that all this app intends to do is to enrichen its owners with the network effect of having thousands of gullible indian on board, it now has targeted ads when the app launches. |
|
|
|
Binance has established itself through embracing and legitimizing all sort of coin startups. Its a symbiotic relationship where they list unknown projects with a semblance of existing community and success. There are quite a few good projects that they have listed but due to the sheer scale of transactions on their platform and the number of users, they are in a position where a project gains legitimacy, simply by the fact that it is on Binance. The addtitional services like Binance research and Binance Launchpad have played their part in it. I think CZ is a good businessman who saw an opportunity and was able to gain a quick foothold and eventual supremacy of the market. Now, if anybody thinks that they have been able to do this without less than scrupulous means is just being naive. Binance is pretty much a big staker of almost all of these PoS coins that keep releasing their own blockchains. So, overall they have made a market for themselves and been a net positive to the space. The whistleblower mentioned in the OP has talked about having audio-video recordings (hitherto unreleased). If true, this will be pretty bad for their reputation.[quote That though is worrisome and would probably be the end of this saga? |
|
|
|
Grabbing the bottom of CAKE and staking it recently definitely would have yielded a nice return that will likely continue to amaze for quite some time. While those projects are likely to continue the boom bust cycle with their outrageous interest rates via the staking pools, you can't argue with the massive returns they provide when you jump into them at the right times. I can see why they've become so popular. Even their websites are usually full of artwork and games marketed to their user base that provide a great interaction.  LOL. Never thought I'd see some OG talk about CAKE. I don't know about the bottom though. Did you grab one? The outrageous interest rates are definitely a thing and this is simply going to slow down as more and more people enter into the rat-race. Its basically just mercenary capital seeking returns and dumping these tokens on retail. A lot of people manage to jump out at the right moment and get some returns. If you are not one of those people who can constantly keep a tab on all of their twitter, telegrams and be ready to sell the news, you can be in big trouble. Yet, i can see how all of it is worth the pain for someone in a third world country who has made his first thousand crypto-dollars online. Its basically free money which is yours to gamble (or risk). A lot of them do make it big by catching the right projects. I also feel that most of the "investors" in these are the early bitcoiners who have made enough bank to be able to risk that kind of free money. It may not be beneficial or sustainable in the long run but its definitely making people returns. So complaining about it just seems like a bad case of "the grapes are sour". Still, Most of these "projects" are an eye-sore and definite scams and i try to stay away from them as much as i can. |
|
|
|
However, if you are talking about real regulatory framework, I reckon it would classify many coins as illegal securities. These projects are in the top 10 in coinmarketcap.com, have organized a presale or a coin offering and have never registered with the SEC. Ethereum, Ripple, Cardano, Binance chain, Polkadot and Solana.
I don’t care about all those shitcoins at all, because except for ETH which still makes some sense, everything else benefits nothing but getting a narrow circle of people rich. It has literally become a wild west where everyone does what they want without having to ask for any permission at all, and everyone is competing with Bitcoin even though no crypto project has managed to get close to it all these years. If ETH makes sense, then so should a plenty of other competing PoS, blockchain contract code providers. The narrow circle of people getting rich has always been the case with VC investing. I find it a better situation that now that circle of people has a chance to expand, thanks to Satoshi. No doubt that a lot of scammers have bastardized the inventions and are clearly using them for personal gains while people (especially noob retailers) shower them with hard earned money and attention based on copied code and slick marketing (XRP and Garlinghouse are a prime example of this). This really feels exasperating to see the promise of blockchain be wasted away on scammers like this and is the reason that we tend to hate shitcoiners. |
|
|
|
I'm mostly bullish, but the market sentiment being overly bullish is slightly worrying in my opinion. Especially now that a lot of people is making freakishly amounts of money flipping NFTs and by buying the "Ethereum killer" coins, I'm definitely slightly skeptical.
In the defense of shitcoiners, I think those people really have a lot going for them because they are offering a solution that investors are willing to put money on. There definitely is demand for centralized blockchain contracts where the central authority is some well-known group of people or a corporation that guarantees the code. The setup is quite simple. There are investors willing to bet money on these blockchain contract providers and that is where the flippers are making insane amounts of money. NFTs are a different story altogether. The concept of verifiable rarity having value isn't new. That is what NFTs do. A lot of those people have emerged from a bitcoin background itself. There is a lot going on there than we discuss here at the forum. |
|
|
|
|
Thanks OP for these threads. While the description of situations in NK may seem hard to believe for some of the pragmatists, I am quite sure that a set of leaders who are capable of planning murder of brothers and blowing people with artillery, can very well create these conditions.
Quite a few apologists of communism in this thread too. Maybe it is just a reflection of the CCP puppets going around on the forum these days and just an overall reflection of the Chinese methods of trying to control narratives through seemingly honest opinions. Yet, anyone with half a brain will realize that Communism can NEVER work. Like NEVER.
By its very definition, communism means that the "means of production and property" is owned collectively, in this case, by the state. And who is the state? There is no "collective entity" called the state. It is a bunch of individuals who rise to the top in the name of equality. Whether its Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao or Sun; they all are individuals or groups of people who become "The state".
This is what leads to the ultimate failure as there are no checks and balances on power that exist in capitalist democracies; free markets, free press, free judiciary. Sure those are not perfect. Yet, that just means they are involved in a constant struggle of distributing resources between unequal participants. Nothing of that sort is possible in Communism.
Communism is fine in theory but impossible to practice at scale.
|
|
|
|
What you seem to forget is despite the fact we can see more and more shops starting to accept Bitcoin as a payment mean (at a low rate speed to me). Only a few of them actually keep the amount in crypto. Surely less than 10%. All others convert the coins to their national currency (and it's often done automatically).
To increase their sales is the only true motivation they have, it's not because they believe in the market. If a day Bitcoin goes down to 10 bucks and people abandon it, they will abandon it too, and even surely faster than the bitcoiners themselves.
Adoption of Bitcoin from user sides is enough. Does it matter if the merchant converts it to Fiat immediately? Any smart merchant would realize that he is much better off keeping part of his income in BTC rather than converting it all. The benefits of BTC are understood at an individual level first. So, even though boosting sales can be the motive, the fact that this makes merchants familiar with Bitcoin is itself a big positive. I concur with @adzino's comment also. I suppose when you say you're happy to see shops accepting BTC but don't want to use, it's because you bet on the bitcoin's price to be higher in the future. Which mean basically you're mainly interested to speculate but that's not really how the ecosystem can evolve. If nobody wants to pay in BTC then nothing will change and we will get stuck where we are today.
I think the OP mentioned that his place doesn't have a lot of options to pay with BTC. If he is saying that he won't use it to buy items, maybe he means that he sees it as a safe personal store of income. A lot of people treat it that way. The real use-case of BTC for payments are not the traditional merchants and grocery stores, the real use case is things like streaming payments over LN. It shouldn't matter in the long run that merchants continue to use fiat. |
|
|
|
|
I wish i understood technical analysis to make sense of those charts. I never had much interest in investing, growth, compounding till I got to know about Bitcoin. Now I do understand that the markets tend to behave cyclically and if you can stay for a long enough time while managing your exposure, it can be a steady source of income and knowledge, though also of a lot of heartache at times.
I'd still take these 100K predictions with a pinch of salt. The turnaround has been amazing this time but you always hear these stories about how it'll "breakout" straight to 100K and that is what causes the retail FOMO. Most retail investors and newbies are ill-served by such predictions. IMO, traders who make such predictions are really just trying to encash their long positions. People like the OP are either naive or part of those pump and dump groups that spread rumors and then take positions.
These posts about BTC being above 50K and set for 60-100K are thus, not only unnecessary, but even malicious.
|
|
|
|
Correct or not, Gary Gensler’s argument that the cryptospace will not reach its potential outside their laws is funny.
Bitcoin itself has enough impetus to thrive regardless. Arguably the wider cryptospace does need a boost to its legitimacy. I don't a great deal of potential (unless you count the potential to rip people off) in the current interpretation of defi. Although it's a struggle to see how the SEC think they could provide any extra legitimacy there. More KYC isn't going to cut it. There's so little they could practically enforce that I think they'd bite off more than they can chew if they tried. With so many hundreds, or possibly thousands of random crappy tokens, they can't possibly have the manpower to keep an eye on all of it. What we call the wider cryptospace is what SEC is probably concerned about. Not so much from "investor protection" point of view but from how the general markets can get poisoned if some really big exploits happen. The example of Mark Cuban losing a few millions in one of these tokens may be of interest. When it comes to BTC, there really isn't much that can be done and nothing much that SEC should do, in good faith. Bitcoin has forced central banks to contemplate CBDCs, which won't pass the basic checks of a democratic society. Though if we now want to project China as the shining example of liberty and free markets, that may very well be the case. The way that CBDCs and Bitcoin ends up being treated will be a lot more political and ideological than merely depending on what the SEC thinks. |
|
|
|
Just keep in mind that safety isn't assured. Treat it like you would any other form of gambling. Play for too long and you're going to lose eventually. Usual 'not your keys, not your coins' warning and such.
About Wrapped BTC earning interest, those are definitely custodial solutions but not exactly like a traditional bank. The bank in case of DeFi is replaced by the blockchain code. Whether those survive or not depends on how robust and secure the code really is. Yet, in DeFi, there will always be a bit of centralization. defi is the future they say.
I'm sure " they" were the same ones who said ICOs were the future. And from what I've seen, most of the stuff they're calling "defi" is just more of the same crap as ICOs. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume it's not real defi if you're earning any interest. To generate interest requires either a debt-based currency, a legitimate business model to fund it (in which case there's almost certainly a centralised element), or it's simply just a ponzi scheme. Its a bit of a stretch to compare ICOs and current DeFi platforms. ICOs never really delivered products. DeFi platforms on the other hand have been providing traditional banking services like market-making, lending, deposits, credit etc for quite some time now. The interest is nothing but the earning from the borrow rate minus the platform fees. Unfortunately, as usual with blockchain, copies of these platforms have proliferated on every chain and everyone opened up a lending platform calling it yield farming. In that case, they really are just ponzis with zero use cases. |
|
|
|
|
Username: amishmanish
Post Count: 2065
BTC Address: bc1q4u8fvk7pn2z9uxlzrn0w0qw62gvpstw8d4fmxs
|
|
|
|
To motivate the new joiners of the sub-forum I will restart the raffles again by this month. Apologize if someone had been eager to know the status of the raffles, I got struck with various works since the beginning of this year and finally getting back on track again. It seems like toxicity has settled down a bit in the Indian forum and there isn't much happening over altogether.
Did I miss anything interesting @amishmanish  Hello H_H..Good to have you back. I am sure you have been in touch with the general sense of crypto with "The B Word" meetup, incoming regulations in the US and all. In the forum itself, a lot of merit sources had their quota bumped up with a PM from @Theymos. Good to have occasional reminders that he is always around as "The silent guardian, The watchful protector". Apart from that, this train has just been slowly chugging along. I keep bumping up my merit thread for newbies but they mostly get lost in the maze of global subs, hunting for bounties after a few posts of engagement. So, As you can tell, Noting's changed..Welcome back.. Hope life is treating you well.. |
|
|
|
|
"Politics is the Art of the Possible" -Otto Van Bismarck
Mixed economy is politics getting into economics. To keep people happy, you need to provide cushy, comfortable jobs, union representation, assured retirement benefits and a certain sense of job security. All of those things are pretty difficult for a capitalist entrepreneur operating in a growing economy with strapped resources. This is why the idea of state owning enterprises to kickstart economic growth has been used for a long time. People started calling it the mixed economy.
Just because there are government regulations on business does not mean that it is a mixed economy. A mixed economy essentially has state owned enterprises, factories, banks etc etc.
Regulation by itself does not make a capitalist country socialist. Another common perception that government providing any sort of social support is socialism is also not correct. Socialism is defined by collective ownership of the means of production. Does your government own your land, grows food on it or digs your coal? If it does, thats a mixed economy and that kind of a system is quite natural to have in a non-industrialized country. It is definitely pretty valid.
|
|
|
|
Eventually when crypto gets bigger then everyone will want a piece of it. Trillion of dollars has been going into crypto ever since the pandemic hit most of the countries leaving the interest rate for goverment bond lower than the average so the only way to get some of it back is to tax crypto.
Not really Trillions of dollars. The DeFi TVL currently stands at just above 84 billion. Thats a far cry from a trillion dollar. Going by the market-cap on CMC would be wrong and even that won't amount to a trillion dollars. In the OP, Rober Leshner has welcomed taxes and I think this is the attitude that most of these Lending/ borrowing platforms will take. If taxation means acceptance for them, they'd be more than happy to be co-opted by the legacy financial system. The trend of PoS coins and governance based on vote-by-wallet, these services have been more centralized that anybody wants to accept, most of all the people behind these projects who now have billions on the line. (Vitalik and Co.) Bitcoin is still and will remain untouched by these centralizing tendencies. Thus, taxing Bitcoin transactions would really be like taxing normal fiat transactions (for which you guys say there is already a per day rule). IMO, The regime should be radically different for Bitcoin and the rest. The rest are centralized corporations providing financial services available to everyone in the world due to their blockchain nature. Bitcoin provides no service. There is no corporation behind it. People just want to keep it and use it. Why should that be taxable?? |
|
|
|
What I think in my head is this way is look like staking Dash which needs a big number of ethereum 32 ETH  But congratulation to people who did stake ETH and earned passive income. But for common people, can not participate in the staking rewards. Having 32 ETH now means a lot and most people have less than 32 ETH. This is the way to make the rich still richer and add more money to their wallet. As usual, high risk can give high rewards. Research before you take part in that and knowing the risk will be important. This is again a great point to add to the question raised here about the difference between bitcoin and Ethereum. In Bitcoin, anybody can be a miner and earn a proportionate income depending on their initial investment. With this 32 ETH requirement, you can be sure that only the old and already rich will be able to take part in the network. 32 ETH is a lot of money if you weren't here since 2013-14. So, the PoS system just reinforces the "Rich get richer" mechanism despite crypto supposedly being a way out of this. I think Vitalik and Co.. knew this all along. The promise of decentralized finance on decentralized smart-contracts is turning out to be a false one to prop up a private corporation. It would be so much better to stick to PoW. Ethereum is working fine and already so much value has been deployed. L2 solutions are also on the way. Despite these developments. Switching to PoS is akin to corrupting your roots in order to have more business. This has been a reaction to other centralized chains and will only make Ethereum lose its one real USP over these other smart-contract platforms. |
|
|
|
Well, looks like a childish act from the hackers side on why they wouldn't it to give in a single transaction and just converting it to some assets instead of the hacked token. I guess USDJ and FBI will be in pursuit of this instead of accommodating a requests, just my two cents. We don't know their point of view but it's totally subjective if we asked them that.
More childish than the hacker was that pathetic "request" from the so-called developers behind Polynetwork. Judging by the language of that post, it is hard to believe that such people could be responsible for so much money. The hacker ultimately turned out to be some white-hat. Although cryptocurrency hacks are getting common, it seems that the law enforcement would be watching this closely. Even after a successful hack, the funds couldn't be liquidated as it is pretty straight-forward to backlist the proceeds. You have to wonder whether the Finance crime divisions would be like, "voila, thats the solution". |
|
|
|
People who write such silly articles on Bitcoin are basically nocoiners or Paid troll armies from some Alt-coins who want to keep their hopes alive of not being relegated to irrelevance. As far as the crypto winter is concerned, I don't think such articles make much of a difference. People who GET bitcoin are not going to be persuaded by such information. What matters is that those of us who do, continue to educate. If he's that genius then why not dig deeper instead of getting just into the shallow and narrow understanding of how things work in crypto? Who knows his agenda but hoping this wouldn't escalate more into a huge manipulation.
He has a deep understand on how bitcoin works. This guy in involved with cryptocurrency long time ago... He is paypal founder, he is in this business for a long time. He has his agenda and self interests. He doesn't care about bitcoin. he is spreading misinformation not because he lacks knowledge, but because he wants to spread misinformation. Maybe to get carbon funds from biden administration? Elon Musk has been contradicting himself intentionally, begging to be corrected. While his bitcoin ethos seem to be somehow in place, the only remaining point of contention after that "B Word" talk is his advocacy of PoS etc. as an alternate. His antics with DOGE seems to have subsided but he has awoken a monster of Tiktokers and idiots all over the world, hoping to catch the "next bitcoin". Jack and Cathie didn't try to challenge him on the B word which almost feels like they had an agreement about where they stand. So Elon wore a Bitcoin T-shirt and also talked about Ethereum. In my personal opinion, it wouldn't be all bad if Ethereum would have stayed on PoW. With this shift to PoS, it is just another for-profit corporation. |
|
|
|
Have you ever experienced living in poverty? It is easier to say like this. But in reality, 99% of the people just want to live comfortably, even if that means that they are living under an authoritarian regime. Just go and ask the ordinary Venezuelans whether they would be willing to swap their passports with the Chinese. I am sure that 90% plus would opt for that. Go to any poor country, and you will get the same response. Democracy is essentially the dictatorship of the majority. So what makes it any different from the system that they have in China?
Well, if you tell those poor people everything about China, I am sure that they wouldn't opt for the passport to live there. Also, can you hear what you're saying? You are basically enabling authoritarian rule instead of the freedom for the people, we shouldn't side with any kind of government, we always should look out for the well being of the public and authoritarian regime isn't a cure, it's a cancer. That could just be a bit of hyperbole for effect from @dezoel but hey, its a figure of speech goddamit. "Democracy is the dictatorship of majority". Wow, where did you come up with that? I am all in for a debate about how democracies are flawed and how Facebook and Cambridge Analytica is ultimately turning us into slaves of the elite. This does not mean that I am about to shun my right to shit on those people and ideas and leaders who try such trickery. I am not ready to give up my right to protest or express just because I'll apparently get more rice. I don't know what this "Poor people" "cleaning river" "Construct toilets" argument has to do with authoritarianism versus freedom of expression. Its not like democracies haven't lifted out people from poverty throughout history. I think if a Chinese as much as mentioned Xi Jinping and Dick in the same sentence, he'd be rounded off to some unknown prison.
You may not be too far, (unless you meant Dick Cheney  ), but in the same time you're most probably somewhat inaccurate too. I was kid in the last years of Ceausescu. You could read everywhere "Ceausescu si poporul" (Ceausescu and the people) and I just loved to rhyme it with "Ceausescu si toporul" (Ceausescu and the axe). While my parents were super scared every time I said that (and this kid was too small to understand why) and shushed me without explaining why, nothing has actually ever happened (luckily). What I mean is although most probably the nation is full of informers, they won't care of just anybody without a tad more solid reasons. Haha..Thanks for that beautiful piece of personal history NeuroticFish. I'd love to hear someone actually say that out loud. Rhyming "Axe" with the name of the General Secretary could sure have consequences, which explains why the elders sushed. It seems innocent to discuss these things now but when people are given more power than their egos can handle, it inevitably leads to disasters. I am glad nothing ever happened.. I had never heard of Ceausescu but co-incidentally, just last week, i watched "Legends" on youtube about Nadia Comaneci, the perfect 10 girl of gymnastics and there I saw a part where she met him after the Montreal Olympics. So i could recall the name about him being from Romania and Nadia defecting to the USA. --snip--
Everyone has a high degree of attention to China, and I often see the keyword "China" on forums. Why is this?
Thats what we've been trying to ask the CCP wolf warriors...lol.. |
|
|
|
Thanks Kimberl for taking the time and effort to elaborate on "Risk analysis" that i suggested you should write a different post about. Any sort of Risk analysis is a pretty professional endeavor and you will find MBA graduates doing it for companies and products. The benefit of this forum is that we can crowd-source information and opinions. Still, it is important to recognize the sources from which we derive that information and give due credit to the ideas. Accordingly, it'll be great if you can elaborate on the sources from where the "Risks for Bitcoin" thought has been inspired (It could even be originally your own post, i just want to be sure). Additionally, there is lot of factual information in this post. (Like the regulatory status of Bitcoin in Germany, Japan and the years when that happened). I request that you put some references there too. I don't get what Risk of Policy though. From the post it seems you are talking about a lack of the traditional fiscal and monetary policy as well as there not being any governing body to implement the same. That is more like a feature of Bitcoin rather than risk. About "Risk of substitution", I doubt that it is possible to create the same, genuinely cypherpunk circumstances that lead to the initial community of brilliant OGs building up Bitcoin. Satoshi leaving behind a stack of One million untouched. Nick Szabo giving away 10,000 BTC to buy Pizza. I don't think the same natural and genuine community can ever form again now that cryptocurrency has become de-facto money. Do you imagine any of these "Teams and advisors" you see on seemingly genuine crypto projects would give away millions in the hope of adoption and education. I don't think so. This is why, the risk of substitution does not seem a risk at all to me. Looking forward to your and others' opinion on this. PS: You can always edit the OP to update the formatting or provide references and credit like i mentioned. EDIT & PS: I would love to know more about the experience of having an actual outlet where you tried crypto payments. |
|
|
|
|
It is not so much about replacing the physically currency but about the regulators and banks world over realizing that the people's movement of their right to have Bitcoin isn't going anywhere.
They cannot just make open source software illegal on a legislative whim. A gradual consensus is emerging within Civil society aided by certain rich individuals (Jack, Elon) that the Govt does not get to have a monopoly on currency. Over the course of development of money, governments have been the de-facto power. Nobody questioned it. Any attempts to change the system were met with retribution because those were started by people or groups. Now, here we have an alternative to money which the government cannot morally and ethically call wrong.
It is open source and people are choosing to use it. Just the way that people choose democracy and give all the power to chosen representative. Power flows from the people and thats what bitcoin has enabled in terms of Socio-economic power.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
