|
Flash has so much vulnerabilities that I've stopped updating and using it a few years ago, and if some site tells me that I need flash, I just look for an alternative site. Also, Flash is just obsolete, modern browsers have everything you need built-in: rendering, video, audio, etc. But generally it's better to surf the web with some no-script add-on and enable scripts only on the sites you trust.
|
|
|
|
Why so hostile? Jargon can evolve very quickly, technology paradigms can change in just a few years, so it's totally possible that some of their predictions will come true. Judging by the current state of this field, to me it seems extremely likely that many of the concepts will die in the future. The only silly part in this article is how some of the people predict that fiat will disappear, lol. This is seriously naive or dishonest. |
|
|
|
So they're thinking of doing themselves out of a decade of tax? Nice for the locals who own it. The others who don't who pay whatever capital gains on their conventional assets might be less impressed. Who knows where it'll be in ten years? Maybe every single Ukrainian will abandon other assets and pile in there.
There were many proposals in the last few years in Ukraine regarding crypto regulations, and even though most of them were relatively friendly (this one is probably the most generous), none of them have managed to get to the phase of voting, they just got stuck. Most of the MP's and their party leaders don't care about cryptocurrencies, or maybe they just like this unregulated status. So, there's no chance that this bill will pass. In principle, unregulated status is also not bad. Especially if you know that there are some good bills in the legislature. Ukraine will soon have elections: at the end of March next year, presidential, and at the end of October - in the Verkhovna Rada. Before and after elections, deputies usually pass good populist laws. Therefore, it is possible that they will soon be accepted about cryptocurrency. It doesn't always work like that, sometimes they pass shitty laws regardless of the upcoming elections. Also, even very positive crypto regulation can't really be considered a populist move, because only very small fraction of the population owns and uses cryptocurrencies, most of the people probably only have heard about it a few times, when it was reported on the news during the bubble. |
|
|
|
So they're thinking of doing themselves out of a decade of tax? Nice for the locals who own it. The others who don't who pay whatever capital gains on their conventional assets might be less impressed. Who knows where it'll be in ten years? Maybe every single Ukrainian will abandon other assets and pile in there.
There were many proposals in the last few years in Ukraine regarding crypto regulations, and even though most of them were relatively friendly (this one is probably the most generous), none of them have managed to get to the phase of voting, they just got stuck. Most of the MP's and their party leaders don't care about cryptocurrencies, or maybe they just like this unregulated status. So, there's no chance that this bill will pass. |
|
|
|
|
Malware authors will adapt to this new policy, they will obfuscate malicious parts of their code in some other ways, like for example by just writing spaghetti code. It will always be very hard to determine what a messy code does by simply looking at it.
Also, there are legitimate reasons for obfuscating code, like for preventing others from stealing and modifying it to use it for profit or just for compressing it, so some innocent parties might also suffer from this policy.
|
|
|
|
Google "dark fiber in the USA" "high trading frequency". It is used to in the stock markets, wall street and so. It is not something hidden. Banks are well known to spend million dollars to develop algorithms for the financial market.
Still, I don't see people complaining about it
Right, this article looks like some common clickbait piece, trading bots have been around for decades, but suddenly it's a big deal in Bitcoin. People are trying so hard to find an explanation for Bitcoin's price volatility, they try to blame it all on some whales and manipulators, but the simple explanation that the market is volatile because the tech is still very young and experimental. Similar price patterns happen with anything new. |
|
|
|
fraudsters invent many tricks to lure naive investors into the nets of their malicious schemes. I agree with the part that the scammers invoke many tricks, they evolve every day, but thanks to the gain of the people that the scammers still exist. if people were not greedy, then the scammers would have disappeared I don't agree with this "blame the victim" approach, first it's natural and good for people to want to improve their financial lives. Greed is when people want more and more wealth when they already have it, but most of the victims of scammers are just average joes, and often they are actually poor and end up being scammed only because they were desperate (and not very smart). |
|
|
|
What a joke, Facebook is the biggest enemy of privacy, people who use it should realize that their data is being sold constantly, sometimes to advertisers and other businesses, sometimes to regimes that prosecute opposition. Blokchain will do absolutely nothing in this scenario, even if it somehow managed to work in this context. |
|
|
|
Actually if you included non-bitcoin paying campaigns (ICO tokens), the number probably has never been higher.
But apart from ICOs, there seems to be a decline in active usage of cryptos (other than trading), which has impact on number of crypto related services and, in turn, on number of campaigns.
Other factor is the increase in spam and low-quality posts, which makes signatures less visible + most of the forum members are not really an attractive target group for advertisers.
But, iirc, we've seen worse than that, both in terms of number of active campaigns and payment rates - it's all about market finding the balance.
I've joined this forum in 2016 and during those days a lot of the campaigns were paid in Bitcoin, even for ICO's, and also ICO's weren't always run on Ethereum but were simply altcoins (hence coin offering, not token offering). So, your explanation is correct, ICO people have figured out that they can just create shitcoins out of thin air and pay with them to bounty hunters. |
|
|
|
Technically speaking, we don't even need decentralized exchanges, but just an environment where we all can be our own exchange, and LN offers that environment. By the time we're a year or two further, there is a much wider level of interoperability between all sorts of networks, and that's when the real party begins. Spot traders will always use centralized exchanges no matter what, which is perfectly fine, and the other part of the industry will feast on peer to peer trades as they should be. That's what I call a perfect balance between supply and demand. It will take some time, but we're still at stage one of everything so that's perfectly fine. Last year was the first ever time that both Bitcoin and Ethereum were pushed to their limits, which caused fees on both platforms to sky rocket, and that's actually a good thing. You don't know when you reach your limit until you actually reach it. See it as a stress test.  I'm not sure if there's a way to make LN and other decentralized technologies to work with fiat (stablecoins don't count). The ability to exchange coins for fiat are very important for cryptocurrencies, without liquidity their value can't grow freely, which undermines their game-theoretic foundations. Low price means lower cost of attack, and that's a problem for any cryptocurrency. |
|
|
|
I agree, regular citizens of Argentina can hardly make an impact on BTC price by their actions. But if the Argentina's Central Bank decided to convert a part of its Foreign Exchange Reserves, which currently amount to over 46 billion USD, into Bitcoin the situation would be different. Unfortunately I don't speak Spanish and maybe that's why I can't find more reliable sources, but at least several English language news sites, including the one from the OP, are talking about such possibility.
We are yet to see some major positive news that are coming from governments, so far we've only seen governments banning or restricting Bitcoin, and most of the time there was very little reaction, especially in long term. It will be very interesting to see how the market will react to something like a central bank adopting Bitcoin, Bitcoin markets can be very sensitive to bullish news (like it happened with starbucks recently), but ultimately I think the same principle holds - the reaction is proportionate to the influence of a government. |
|
|
|
Although the graph in the article shows rising in weekly trading volume of BTC against Argentine peso(ARS), this volume is still very small compared to that of other National Currencies. Currently the daily BTC/ARS exchange volume takes 48th place with only 0.0001 % of the total trading volume. For those who are interested in more detailed information here's the link: https://www.coinhills.com/market/currency/Certainly there can't be any impact on Bitcoin price, considering that the volume is so low. But if the Central Bank of one of the wealthiest countries in Latin America will start buying BTC diversifying their currency reserves, the situation may change significantly. We'll see. I feel like this is the case with nearly any news about investors moving to Bitcoin in some countries as a reaction to negative economic events - it always end up with having no impact because the volume is only a tiny fraction of Bitcoin's total volume. I'd only pay attention to countries with big Bitcoin trading volume if I wanted to make some predictions on the potential price changes from certain news. |
|
|
|
Decentralized exchanges are not immune to hacking, you probably won't be able to hack everyone at the same time, but there's always a possibility of bugs that will create vulnerabilities that will allow hackers to steal money from individual trades by not delivering on their part of the deal. Dcentralized exchanges are based on smart contracts or something similar to them, and we know many cases of smart contracts being exploited.
The NEM team also stated in an official statement that while it has deployed an automatic tagging system to trace lost funds for the investors of Coincheck, the team emphasized that the exchange had extremely poor security systems in place.
This sounds worrying, what if NEM team will quitely install some tagging system at the request from governments? |
|
|
|
Tons of coins have faster and more scalable blockchains than Bitcoin, so presenting a new one is pretty boring. The question should be whether his network is as decentralized and secure as Bitcoin's network. If it's not, then what's the point? A centralized blockchain is just a payment processor like PayPal, and no matter how hard those middleman claim to be honest, it never ends well for the users.
Completely agree with this. More so because there already is a super fast centralized payment system, which is called XRP. It completes transactions in just seconds, so what's there to gain from this? XRP is also centralized, and it can scale to become even faster. I'm not hyping up XRP, but just pointing out that you don't gain anything from having a faster alternative than Bitcoin. Bitcoin only needs to be Bitcoin in order to be Bitcoin. Can anyone follow me? The tech is completely irrelevant in this case since there is nothing that can replicate what Bitcoin did and will be doing in the future. Most people don't give a shizzle about using crypto as money, regardless of how fast the transactions are. The volatility is killing all the 'usefulness' for daily transactions. Crypto is bad money. Volatility won't last forever, at some point the price will settle around its fundamental value, which is determined by its quality. Bitcoin absolutely can be dethroned as the best cryptocurrency, it's just that it's very unlikely, because so far no one is even trying to do it - develope a protocol that is as secure or even more secure than Bitcoin. This is because it's hard to sell security to people, while it's easy to sell "fast transactions" to the masses. |
|
|
|
|
Tons of coins have faster and more scalable blockchains than Bitcoin, so presenting a new one is pretty boring. The question should be whether his network is as decentralized and secure as Bitcoin's network. If it's not, then what's the point? A centralized blockchain is just a payment processor like PayPal, and no matter how hard those middleman claim to be honest, it never ends well for the users.
|
|
|
|
|
Lol, Coinidol sounds just like bitcoin.com - throwing dirt at Bitcoin developers, suggesting "alternative teams" as the solution, spreading FUD to newbies. The reality is, Bitcoin is still the best cryptocurrency, it's not perfect but it's better than others, other coins historically had way worse bugs. And this bug in Bitcoin client is not too dangerous because it's really hard to execute, so there's no reason for the price to drop, and the price indeed hasn't dropped.
|
|
|
|
|
Notice how the price haven't moved this time. Usually many people think that an exchange hack is a disaster for Bitcoin, because it somehow undermines the value proposition of Bitcoin. This opinion is often based on past events, like Mt. Gox and other exchanges, but the negative effect of hacks have been lowering with every year. Today $60 million is a drop in an ocean, and just like fiat doesn't crash when a bank gets robbed, Bitcoin doesn't go down.
|
|
|
|
but like cryptocurrencies, the pot industry isn't going anywhere. at the state level, things have progressed past the point of no return. it's only a matter of time before the feds come around and reschedule cannabis. that'll probably cause another cycle of new investment.
I'd say pot industry has better fundamentals than cryptocurrencies, millions of people were smoking weed illegally, now even more will join, especially as more states and governments legalize it. Maybe at some point weed will even flip alcohol as most common drug. Kinda hard to compare weeds adoption with cryptocurrency adoption when most of the coins have almost no users, and even popular coins mostly used only as speculative investment. |
|
|
|
What of machine to machine stuff? At present that's borderline completely untapped but in the next few years there might be trillions of transactions taking place between machines every day and many of them will want to swap tokens and currencies.
That's not going to work if they have to log in to somewhere, validate the login, click on a bunch of fucking shopfronts or buses to actually get in to the site, and then start dicking around with order books.
There's a lot more than just boring baseline humans who'll get use out of crypto and that's likely to be where tit-exploding levels of boom will be fostered.
Like Internet of Things? That idea is considered overhyped by many experts, there are tons of problems while the benefits are not as big as its proponents may claim. Generally, people are not really good at predicting the future of technology, they expect too much from one things (flying cars) and fail to predict the others (smartphones). I'm generally skeptical about big predictions, and when they come from people like McAfee, I'm twice as skeptical. |
|
|
|
I guess the reason why bitcoin has a stable price is because miners are mining sometimes or even stop mining at all. The supply of coins freeze and the price would definitely freeze to. Correct me if im wrong but i really believe mining and the price are linked. If one stop moving then the other one will follow.
Do you realize that Bitcoin's blockchain in entirely public, so anyone can go and test your statement by analyzing the blocks data. There's nothing like what you have described, there are not huge gaps in block times that are outside of standard deviation. Also, if miners wanted to decrease supply, they could have just hodl their coins. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
