Agree with all said here, the Ordinals guys will run out of money or move onto the next stupid craze. It’s disruptive & makes fees much higher but I think they will move onto something else soon. It’s like the ICO craze of 2017, the NFT craze of 2020/21. Those crazes dried up & people got bored, they will also get bored of stupid images stored on the blockchain too.
There's no utility in Ordinals inscriptions. Most of them are driven by hype more than anything else (pure speculation). Everybody wants to get rich, right? It will be all over faster than you could imagine. In the meantime, I'd suggest you hold onto your BTC unless it's really something important. Moving out of BTC into an altcoin can be challenging, especially if on-chain fees stay high for long periods of time. Getting paid directly in an altcoin of your choice (or even the LN) may be your best bet of avoiding high fees altogether. Many users are angry of Bitcoin's current situation, so it should only be a matter of time before the dust settles. As long as decentralization is preserved, there should be nothing to worry about.  The situation is VERY annoying, but as what has been said before, Bitcoin is still doing its job, and doing its job well. It has been chugging along, producing block after block, while also incentivizing the providers of network security. But is it currently giving its users the best UX? NO, and although I agree that something should be done, I believe it shouldn't be taken by the community as a sort of drama/social/philosophical issue. I believe many developers would contend that it's a technical issue. |
|
|
|
Stop loss is not always the answer to everything in trading when it comes to saving one's capital or investment because the type of cryptocurrency and the type of trading you choose for your trading are also important cause they are what will determine your decision.
There are situations whereby the moment the trader chooses to stop loss or close the deal is when the market will reverse.
That's very true especially if the "trader" chooses to trade low-liquidity shitcoins. The usual situation that happens is, it goes down to your stop-loss, you close the trade, then it surges 3x mere moments later leaving you with a loss and a lot of frustration.  There's probably only 50% of the 10% of profitable traders that truly make money consistently to be a semi-professional bedroom trader. Some of us either become part of the 10% ourselves or lose all of our money. |
|
|
|
Ordinals are a waste of block space but what can we do? miners just want profits and they'll mine blocks irrespective of what they contain.
Technically it isn't a waste in block space. It doesn't take the space from actual Bitcoin transactions. It's obviously wrong, Ordinals TX has size more than 0. I didn't say Ordinals transaction size isn't zero. I said technically it isn't a waste in block space. Why? Because the data isn't embedded within the structure where the UTXO set is stored. It goes to the structure of the block where witness data are stored, which is prunable. But Bitcoin Stamps is something different, and it should be more concerning in my opinion. |
|
|
|
A closure of such channels may make sense for Phoenix. You're right, my reasoning was wrong. Most of the funds are locked on Phoenix' end of the channel, and they locked even more than I deposited. Makes me wonder how profitable this is for them: it looks like they're just HODLing their funds in open channels, but they can't earn much unless people send and receive many transactions. But because Phoenix is building an app that wants to give its users a good UX when using the Lightning Network, then they need to accept the opportunity-cost and boot-strap the the network with liquidity from their own wallet. They may currently not earn much today, but given the need for layered privacy and low fees for small transactions, it could help increase the demand for payment channels. |
|
|
|
Learn to cut your loss, yes I mean it, the are so many rules and skills in trading which in other to succeed in trading you must utilize to the maximum, and one one them is learn to cut your loss if it's obvious that holding your position will do more harm tham good.
Most traders have fail to understand that in trading it's very important to keep your ego aside and admit when you are wrong, cut your loss early so that you can try again .
If you are using leverage, you can open a position and set take profit and stop loss. But if you use averaging, that may not come your mind. Using stop loss depends on the type of trader that you are. It also depends on the type of asset you're buying. Nascent altcoins built and maintained by good developers might give the investor some long-term probability that the investment will gain a good ROI, despite its flaws. But a shitcoin, that's very volatile and unpredictable, that definitely needs a stop-loss. The problem is where do you place the stop-loss if it's very volatile? You could be stopped out if placed too near the average price entry, and taking a larger loss if it's too wide. The best decision = HODL, or take a long-term investment in the best cryptocurrency. Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
I think more so I would be afraid of the bitcoin market manipulation via ETF/Futures contracts trading. But at the same time these markets are completely stand alone from bitcoin and shouldn't have that much affect on the coin price but it honestly probably will have a huge impact. As good as it will be at the start for new money flooding into bitcoin i'm not so sure on the long term outlook if you're looking at it from that perspective and how they have manipulated markets like the precious metals markets.
I believe "the issue" that everyone should become more informed AND POSSIBLY afraid of is the paragraph that mentions BlackRock and how it might choose which fork it considers "the Real Bitcoin". I don't know if the contents in this paragraph was made as a mere protection mechanism for BlackRock and its ETF, but if they form a cabal with other ETF issuers and hold more than 50% of the total supply, they may accumulate too much influence over the network. Tin-foil hats on, probably start a hash war and have their chosen fork as "Bitcoin"? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ In the event of a hard fork of the Bitcoin network, the Sponsor will, if permitted by the terms of the Trust Agreement, use its discretion to determine which network should be considered the appropriate network for the Trust’s purposes, and in doing so may adversely affect the value of the Shares. In the event of a hard fork of the Bitcoin network, the Sponsor will, as permitted by the terms of the Trust Agreement, use its sole discretion to determine, in good faith, which peer-to-peer network, among a group of incompatible forks of the Bitcoin network, is generally accepted as the Bitcoin network and should therefore be considered the appropriate network for the Trust’s purposes. The Sponsor will base its determination on whatever factors it deems relevant, including but not limited to, the Sponsor’s beliefs regarding expectations of the core developers of bitcoin, users, services, businesses, miners and other constituencies, as well as the actual continued acceptance of, mining power on, and community engagement with, the Bitcoin network, or whatever other factors it deems relevant. There is no guarantee that the Sponsor will choose the digital asset that is ultimately the most valuable fork, and the Sponsor’s decision may adversely affect the value of the Shares as a result. The Sponsor may also disagree with Shareholders, the Bitcoin Custodian, other service providers, the Index Administrator, cryptocurrency exchanges, or other market participants on what is generally accepted as bitcoin and should therefore be considered “bitcoin” for the Trust’s purposes, which may also adversely affect the value of the Shares as a result. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1980994/000143774923017574/bit20230608_s1.htm |
|
|
|
But he does have a point. Because what's the threshold in how much of the total supply should be stored in centralized vaults before Bitcoin is considered "a failure"? If more than 50% of the total supply are held and controlled by a cabal, it would definitely NOT be good for Bitcoin from a supply distribution/decentralization viewpoint. That cabal would have the market cornered. Who would want to start a company built on top of Bitcoin under such a situation? The environment could be manipulated against those that want to compete against the cabal. |
|
|
|
|
BetPlay Group, I have a suggestion. With the mempool constantly being congested caused by high demand for block space, it's probably good to start promoting the feature you have that probably no other casino has adopted right now = Lightning Network deposits and withdrawals.
I believe deposit bonuses + extra free spins for users that deposit through the Lightning Network would encourage users and make them more aware that there are other methods to deposit Bitcoin in your casino.
|
|
|
|
But like all economies around different regions of the world, an economy can't expand forever, and not especially China's economy for the zoomed out long term.
Currently, I have been reading that China's five largest state-owned banks have cut deposit interest rates to discourage people from saving and stimulate spending.
I disagree. It all comes down to demand. The demand for Chinese goods is increasing. Check out the massive and still increasing trade deficits between China and any country you like, it is in hundreds of billions specially with largest economies like US. With recession and inflation in the world this will continue growing faster too. That is why they keep Yuan exchange rate weak. A Recession means that a country's economy is slowing down to a point that it has negative growth year on year, a technical recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth. That definitely makes businesses start laying off a percentage of the labor force - making unemployment surge, and if unemployment surges - demand goes down for both domestic and imported products/services. Inflation won't be good too, because if prices for goods and services continue to be high, then people's savings will run out and eventually that will cause a recession.
The only way that it would stop growing is if the Chinese government allows Yuan to get stronger (increase exchange rate) against other fiat currencies (which they'll never do) or if other fiat currencies like dollar and euro get dumped as low as Yuan to be able to compete with Chinese products, 1 USD is about 7 Yuan and that's how much it should dump for any hope of competition (which will also not happen because they tend to keep the interest rates high to keep the exchange rate artificially high).
What we see these days like the second line of your comment above is meant to strengthen the domestic economy and keep the economy healthy while the global market becomes volatile due to recession (less overall foreign demand in short term).
But zoomed out long-term, it might be impossible for China to support their economy through domestic demand. Why? Because their population is dying. |
|
|
|
Have running almost one year with my investing bitcoin accumulation but I start around $150 every week and raise $600 in monthly for investing in bitcoin, wish have stable financial and keep consistency investing or accumulation as much possible in bitcoin until several years later.
The ideal time to run a DCA strategy is when an investor has a consistent cash inflow or outflow, and at that point, they can run the strategy for as long as they want, up to several years, with any weekly investment amount. Without a reliable source of income, I doubt someone would invest in bitcoin on a weekly or monthly basis, much less being consistent over a year, if that were the case. I have already posted about this before, but it's also very important for those people who are still single, with no/minimal responsibilities in life, to be reminded NOT to take their youth and being single for granted. Take it as an opporutnity to save portions of their salary and make a high-conviction investment/HODL in Bitcoin. They will definitely have higher probability for success because they could continue to HODL through the bear cycles without worrying much about their finances. |
|
|
|
There's no easy way to undo ordinals at this point. You are going to need to gather enough capital and mining power involved to basically push for what would be a BTC hardfork without ordinals, and this would need to be done in a way that guarantees no future ordinals are possible, but then again, how do you this without causing another hardfork civil war, and how do you do it without getting rid of taproot? because if taproot is possible, I believe there could be ways around any restrictions put into ordinals to come up with alternatives.
It's all because of SegWit + Taproot. Without those upgrades, Bitcoin would've stayed a pure money system by now. Forks like BCH and BSV didn't need Taproot because they took a different approach for scaling (increasing the block size). They are safe from Ordinals. Now BTC developers would need to find a way to lower the fees without censoring Ordinals inscriptions. I know miners won't like this, but it's the majority that counts (users, node operators, businesses, etc). If a super majority approves a reduction on network fees, miners would have no choice but to "go with the flow". Ordinals happened because of Segwit + Taproot? Can a developer correct me on what I'm about to post, but no ser. Ordinals would have still happened without Segwit + Taproot, and if the network didn't have Segwit, Ordinals would be embedding arbitrary data within the blocks itself, not in the structure where the witness data resides - which is prunable. Plus merely increasing the block size at the cost of centralizing the network is not scaling.
Now BTC developers would need to find a way to lower the fees without censoring Ordinals inscriptions.
bitcoin has always censored transactions.. thats what validation rules are for!!! its why we dont see LTC BCH BCV XRP, DOGE transactions in the bitcoin blockchain its why we dont see double spends, dust and a whole array of other cases of transactions that didnt fit the ruleset  frankandbeans, stop gaslighting Abiky. The full nodes enforcing the network's consensus rules is NOT censorship. |
|
|
|
@Wind_FURY
Exploits as in the hacked money the authorities claim went through the mixer.
OK, I thought you were talking about system vulnerabilities/security flaws.
Have they sanctioned and traced where those funds went? It doesn't seem like it. It looks like sloppy work putting an escrow address of a signature campaign on a sanctions list and patting yourself on the shoulders, saying that you made a difference somehow.
That's the point that I have been trying to emphasize. I don't have any problem if the authorities/law enforcement do their jobs. But we need refutability against their claims because how do we truly verify if they're doing their jobs properly, or not. I also don't have any problem if a company decides to hire the services of a blockchain analysis company. As a centralized entity it's their decision and it's not illegal. BUT as a community I believe as a matter of ethics, they should always give their users the benefit of the doubt. |
|
|
|
I can say what i don`t want to see. Referral links or some marketing tricks that makes me to give some profit to review owner. I can`t believe that the review is truth in such situation.
The best review of any casino for me is the list of advantages, the list of games, KYC, withdraw/deposit restrictions. That`s all.
Referral links are OK in my opinion, as long as the review site makes it clear that you're going to sign up through their referral link, AND as long as the person signing up could also get a better cash-back deal/incentive if he/she signs through the site's referral link. I believe many review sites are not doing that to get better margins from new sign-ups, but I believe if they did, they might scale their business and get more sign-ups even though they'll have smaller margins. |
|
|
|
3. What should a casino review contain to make you read it?
I want to read actual reviews and experiences from actual people/admins working in the review website. Post about real user experiences, and update them to compare from past reviews if the casino improved its service/UX, or if it has gotten worse since last review. Plus the people have currently become smarter. I suggest avoid using generic reviews that make it obvious that the "reviewer" didn't spend some time in the casino that he/she is reviewing. |
|
|
|
Hey right, current situation with Bitcoin Chain Fees is really insane. And it's not even clear when the fee situation can settle down. Obviously many players even very much interested in playing at our website may hesitate to deposit not to pay such fees.
So definitely we will be introducing new currencies soon.
That would be great if you guys could tell what you think we should add - which currencies the community prefers more.
Let's make a list of top-3 most requested!
Throw ideas right here please!
Much appreciated!
Because your service already accepts Bitcoin, why not start supporting Bitcoin deposits and withdrawals through the Lightning Network? It's faster than on-chain transactions, it has cheaper fees, and Lightning definitely adds a layer of privacy for users. BetPlay has already adopted it, and it would make Lightning better if a service such as yours would start supporting it too. Perhaps you could contact them if you need some feedback and technical questions. |
|
|
|
Gennady the whale casino player from BlackJack.Fun? He will probably make 1,000 sports bets for mere fun with $3.00 each just to win $200? I may need the names of the best gamblers in the forum to assist me. xGennady... will be watching out for this lad we have been warned Round 2 could have a totally different layout of positions once sig payments go out as I didn't see some players participate for this reason and could be joining in RD2 Otherwise fingers crossed, hope to be on the podium if luck will be on my side. Hahaha. It's true, he's a top player in BlackJack.Fun by volume. He was consistent in the top 5 of the casino's weekly and monthly wagering tournament, and he probably has more free spins than anyone that he might be hurting "Diggy's hole". The users in their chat-box will know what I'm talking about.
Little Mouse, when will the next round start? Plus can we use multi-bets to qualify as long as the odds are more than 1.50? It will be counted as one bet, obviously.
Next round will be tougher than the first and already some big hitters have been spotted...no mentioning of names here lol Give us one name? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ |
|
|
|
Do you hold UTXOs that were sent from Sinbad's sanctioned wallet? Why not do a small experiment, "for the science". Everyone that participated in the Signature campaign does. The authorities sanctioned the escrow address that held and still holds the signature campaign payments to the OFAC sanctions list. I am not sure what the other sanctioned address is, but it never held any real value on it. One could rightly ask, what's with the hundreds of millions of allegedly laundered and mixed coins from hacks and the addresses connected to those exploits. Are they sanctioned? What exploits? But if you mean addresses that received outputs that were mixed through Sinbad, it's probably better to assume that they're being monitored. I believe it would also be better to send those UTXOs to yourself through the Lightning Network. Those outputs would be left in one of the relay nodes.
Why not do a small experiment, "for the science".
After everything that has been said and done concerning Wasabi and zkSNACKS, I don't want to use their wallet. Don't take it personally, Wasabi is just one of the tools that you could choose, or not to choose, to use in Bitcoin. Plus just do it as an experiment merely to know if it works. |
|
|
|
@Kruw
With everything that happened with Sinbad and the campaign's escrow address landing on the OFAC sanctions list, has zkSNACKs implemented the same sanctions to the address and/or all others connected to it? More precisely, since it isn't zkSNACKs that implements the sanctions and its the blockchain analysis company, is the suggestion that zkSNACKs receives to allow or disallow UTXOs into coinjoins from the above-mentioned users? I don't use Wasabi, but it would be interesting to hear how it would handle it.
Do you hold UTXOs that were sent from Sinbad's sanctioned wallet? Why not do a small experiment, "for the science". You send some coins to zkSNACKS' coordinator and check if your UTXOs are blocked. If they are, send those UTXOs to the Lightning Network, then send them to yourself. Get them out of Lightning, in a new "clean" address, then send them to zkSNACKS' coordinator. |
|
|
|
a discussion about ways to protect Bitcoin
While I don't doubt your intentions are good, the way in which most people seem to be going about this, the proposed " solution" sounds to me like a bigger threat then the underlying problem. You don't cure the disease by killing the patient. All I see is an angry, ignorant lynch-mob with their pitchforks and torches threatening to burn down the whole village to "fix" things. If people burn this thing to the ground, there will be nothing left worth having. I believe everyone should zoom out and get a view of the situation as if they were outside, not inside. There are some people who are becoming too emotional and they try to make it as a sort of drama/social problem, instead of what it really should be - a technical problem. Because if the knee-jerk reaction is to prevent propagation of Ordinals, then they will send those transactions directly to a miner for validation, OR, they might start looking for other ways to embed data within the part of the block that's not prunable, like Bitcoin Stamps. |
|
|
|
Two months might not be enough time to say that it will be permanent. Plus the Core Developers would probably be in a better position to do something if they study the issue more slowly/carefully. Bitcoin is currently valued at almost $1,000,000,000,000. That's ALMOST ONE TRILLION. The developers SHOULD be more careful and they shouldn't do anything too hastily. Because if the network breaks, there goes the evolution of money.
--Snip-- I know what you're doing frankandbeans, but it's OK. I'm a mere pleb who's merely walking a path of my own Bitcoin journey. But what every newbie needs to see is your trust-rating and ask, should they listen to a troll that spreads misinformation, or listen to two trustworthy people in the Bitcoin community who are, not by coincidence, Bitcoin Core developers. But if it isn't breaking the consensus rules, then technically, it isn't an "exploit". Perhaps in your opinion it is, but it's debatable.
It is an exploit when it is not the expected behavior and when it is using an oversight by the developers who left the validation rules loose. That's precisely the point, it's debatable. Because other developers/users, and I'm not saying I necessarily agree with them, would consider it a "solution" to the problem "How do we bring NFTs and tokens in the Bitcoin blockchain". It might be an inefficient, inelegant "solution", but for them it's probably enough to build on. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
