Such a law would be hard to accomplish, I imagine it was back then. There'd then be enouch ways to exchange crypto to currency if that happened or to assets once crypto wasn't allowed to flourish in some areas. I don't think there's one market with significant influence on bitcoin though, I think that's been decentralised a bit too recently (US companies might be the largest public buyers, but even then they don't seem to have that much influence on the price from there when they claim they've bought or sold).

I don't know if areas like Europe will follow the US on such a ban too, there's a chance but there's also something they could gain by watching the US banning it and keeping hedge funds and other companies happier by keeping it (there's already a much less regulated derivatives market in Europe too).

So it's similar to the one The Netherlands hoped to implement (I remember trezor making it mandatory, receiving backlash, then making it optional.

2 years is long though, the UK expected to implement their crypto based laws within half a year (on registering frequent exchanges and exchangers).


I guess we'll have to wait to see how this will actually work. They probably have the code universities were working on to find evil addresses and may be able to denonymise quite a lot form there and from information provided to exchanges.

How this could be implemented will also have a big effect on how well it works (especially because of their own GDPR rules which should mkae them hesitent on what they retain - such as using aliases or not denonymising people until they want their identity as long as they do enough proof of concepts to ensure they can).


We'll see a good glimpse into the start of how they plan to implement these laws but they may have implemented some to scare away people from doing certain transactions until more tracking is available to them.

I think there's the fact it's still emerging, and considered new and risky. This'll probably be the case until its widely accepted and widely used in places (it doesn't have to be done everywhere but as soon as it's done in a city and shows proof it'll keep them stable we'll see this happening).

By accepted I don't necessarily mean it has to be used as a means of payment for goods but could be stored or used in other ways.

The people saying we're going to be in a bear market for a few years are using the past to attempt to determine what's going to happen next (and are also perhaps hoping for the past to repeat itself because it's much easier to trade when you know what's going to happen).

I don't think it was a gamble. Russia was unlikely to stop at Ukraine and go further through Europe to start annexing countries in the EU and close neighbours.

Renewables were considered more efficient than trans atlantic cabling but it might be faster to lay those cables too than it will be to wait for renewables to power a lot of the grid. That would probably annoy the US quite a bit too as they'll not get cheap gas from Canada (as they already do).

I've been reading through quite a bit of what's gone wrong (put harshly) with this and 1 paying people too little for producing their own electricity and 2 taxing them on that production looks like it is dissincentivised in a lot of areas (like Spain's solar tax).

There's two types of inflation also:
One is set by money supply as you said, the other is determined by a rise in prices (the two are often used interchangeably but the first is hard to measure and normally doesn't get mentioned by the media).

For example, the first type of inflation increased dramatically over the pandemic but the second wasn't noticed until much later (the prices of most things dropped at the start of the pandemic and continued to stay low throughout - this is also why the current inflation could be reported as being even higher than would have been expected if we just had a normal recession).

The other thing to explain is WHY we have inflation and that's generally become harder to explain. It was initially thought that inflation would cause people to spend their money rather than holding onto it (which it does) but it also disproportionately affects those who work for their income compared to those who invest for it. If you invest for a stable income, workers pay you for the product (in dividends) and likely also pay you by buying similar stocks (in things like a pension). This means a lot of big investment funds are able to perform at 8-20% a year (matching US monetary inflation with the 8%), but workers don't normally see that sort of growth in their salaries.

I left out the idea it promotes the economy to grow by giving a few % instead of a flatline when the economy is stable (for values like gdp) as there's a chance it'd just be measured in another currency that's inflation based if a country's currency was deflationary.

Well that article seems short...

2024 is a while away, I wonder what the delay is for. It sounds like something that could be done on paper to check the identity of wallet users but not something that could actually be implemented by anywhere that isn't a custodial exchange (or their software offerings).

Even trying to include something into open source code that can't be hacked seems like it'll be impossible - and there doesn't seem to be information on what happens if the user or developer refuses to comply with that law too.

It's possible to make a gambling site that awards nfts but I don't think there's much of a market for it. I also don't know whether it is best to give an nft to users as a jackpot or constantly (probably the jackpot system but then you might also have to encode a buyback system - and then users might not want the nft anyway if they can sell it back for higher than they'd get on an exchange for it).

Also are you talking about a gambling site that was centralised or not as that'll also have an effect here. Centralised gambling firms offering nfts will probably be considered gimmicky by a lot of people.

Go here to change your privacy settings (it's near the top): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;sa=account

Everyone can see your email address at the moment. You might also want to make a new one if you care about security, not being spammed and privacy.

I'd recommend getting accustomed to using bitcoin and sending a few dollars back and forth from the exchange to a Software wallet to ensure you're comfortable doing it when you get a hardware one. You don't want to be losing your whole funds and being dissuaded from crypto because you make a mistake with your first transaction (which can happen). I wouldn't do too many tests though either because fees aren't 0.


Mycelium is compatible with ledger and trezor too so it's a good wallet for mobile (but it is closed source).

If you're only storing bitcoin op then using electrum with your hardware wallet and picking a trezor or ledger is a good place to start.

I don't think it matters unless they've actually listed what the trigger price should be. There's two different ways this is done on exchanges though, the trigger price I'm thinking of is the one that makes the order active/live after the price is hit? In this case you can set it to whatever you want as long as it's close and perhaps learn from how the market reacts to it if they have a bot that updates when the assets have been bought.

If you have a trigger price set too close, there's a chance everyone's could trigger at once and produce a buy/sell wall that ultimately acts as support or resistance that might then be broken again before the take profits are hit meaning you could have set your trigger price to be further away.

I remember a lot of them being labelled scams (especially provably fair ones that relied on server timestamps as part of their provably fair system) or because it relied too heavily on being instant, autonomous and accurate which is quite hard to achieve all at once.

Perhaps some also gave way to casinos that can now function on the lightning network instead of on chain. Some casinos also offered zero confirmation deposits which might've caused the death of some of these too (providing an rbf flag was added - I don't know if they're still a thing either).

Around the 18800 level? Looks like we've only closed below it twice on the daily since the first close on it so perhaps it is holding well. It looks like we're near a pivotal resistance around the 20500-21000 region too (with a channel that's dropping fairly slowly).

Bip39 has limits on how long nmemonics can be (and they're set to be divisions of 3). I don't know how trust wallet generates seeds or what length they'll be but it makes sense it'll only give you 12 word seeds (that's 128 bits of entropy and an already impossible number to crack/guess).

Most wallets that incorporate bip39 go with 128 bits (12 words) or 256 bits (24 words). The best way to ensure your wallet is more secure is by extending these words with a passphrase that you'll remember (it can't be recovered) if Trustwallet supports that or finding a different wallet that does.

The miner just mines blocks that contain transactions. The one that pays them is included in that block. Each block is mined on average every 8-10 minutes. This also means transaction confirmations aren't instant (and normally take about 20-30 minutes to receive 3 or 4 confirmations if a competitive fee is paid).

I'd advise comparing prices between sage deposit boxes and self storage (self storage is probably about as secure - especially if you're using a passphrase stored elsewhere or multisig between multiple places - attacking them is also less lucrative as safe deposit boxes mostly have things that are expensive to everyone and self storage often just has things the renter won't want to replace).

Additionally, in case you're weary of where you've placed everything, they might be faster to access too. The security likely also depends on you not telling anyone who knows enough about you where they might be too.

I think from a security standpoint it's safer to have the two wallets as separate and different (if your browser gets malware, your other wallet would be safe). Things like hardware wallets are a good way to bridge the gap if you only want one nmemonic and passphrase but want to keep a good level of security too.

I think metamask would be better off focusing on improving their gui and adding extra and better functions before they added bitcoins or other coins. I feel it might even be confusing to use metamask to interact with other blockchains like harmony one/phantom/bsc for newbies already too, if bitcoin was added in a similarly confusing way to those then I think you'd see a lot more mistakes and loss of funds before any widespread benefit came from it.

I'm having difficulty imagining this scenario because I don't think much would work if those cables were cut.

If you imagined having an international banking scheme that relies on planes, the economy has probably already crashed.

I think the Internet could probably be launched off satellites if something like this happened so things would be less interrupted/interruptable - but satellite Internet is slow. Blockstream could probably be better resourced than the Internet for doing the downloads too (with the satellite internet being used to query if the chain is still trustworthy and the longest). Blockstream can't receive transactions too so that might be a problem (or it couldn't when I last checked).

---

Thankfully, the cables wrap fully around the earth and if part of a cable is broken it can be repaired (it's not like they actually take up the entire cable and relay a new one in its place, they can float the broken part of the cable up to the surface and fix only the bit that needs fixing there - it's locatable by echo location).

The US was in a bull market for a long time, it's getting closer to being a bear market as it's strained under bearish conditions at the moment due to unrest in a lot of places (such as Russia's border moving closer to Nato - in both ways).

It's often said in crypto that it's easy to make money in a bull market and as easy to lose it in a bear (which is likely true). The difference with stock markets is that they're international and there's always a bull market out there (even if not with shares than with forex which has most pairs in both directions).

The main trading blocks the US fed focuses on seem to be US, EU, UK and Asia, one of those is often bullish while the others are bearish unless an international event happens like the last 2008 financial crisis - in which case a lot of areas of commodities like gold, land and food start to enter bull markets instead as money that's able to be withdrawn needs to go somewhere providing the rate is good.

I'm not sure why it'd do that but the malware could keep a copy of the legitimate address and do something with that later (it could certainly use it to get more information on the users they infect).

It'll be very hard to work out why this has been done unless the person who programmed it says, it could also be a mistake or an attempt to mask funds that have been stolen.

Every wallet can be targeted if you don't use them properly (same goes for hardware, although most of what you have to do with hardware is decide if you initiated the transaction and if it's as you expect - although there are still some issues with smart contract signing afaik).

Trustwallet is about as secure as metamask though and depends more on your computer's security than hardware would. If you are only using it for small amounts then it's safe enough.

If you're storing high values of many tokens it would be safer to have multiple hardware wallets with different wallets/passphrases to ensure you won't get scammed when signing erc20 transactions and similar. If you're working with a few altcoins but they're of lower value, using a mix of trusted wallets is probably the most secure way (and perhaps a hardware wallet for things you're less likely to spend or for coins you need larger amounts of - for fees - like bitcoin or ethereum).