As an investment they would be more flexible than Bitcoin since they integrate with the rest of a typical consumer's investment dashboard. You can buy the products on margin, schedule purchases, do program trades, and all kinds of things. And things like tax reporting is built right in to the system so it doesn't leave you a nightmare filing mess at the end of the year. You're bringing some good points. It's just that I, personally, like actually owning the investment, not having the investment written to my name. Maybe it has to do with the aesthetics, but I just prefer engaging in a very transparent procedure, that is buying bitcoin, than messing with broker firms and stocks that I'll have to oversee every month. Did something about it change since then that has made in invulnerable to such devaluation? It is absolutely vulnerable to devaluation, just as any other property or investment. |
|
|
|
I have never thought about it, but it sounds very reasonable. That's of course possible, if we take for granted that satoshi is still out there, or that their keys are safe in someone else's hands. I never understood why we treat Satoshi's coins as "unofficially lost". Just because they haven't moved since 2009-2010 doesn't mean he is dead or has lost the keys. To both these scenarios there's an equally probable scenario (as far as we're aware) where Satoshi notices his coins are likely to be stolen, and chooses to either burn them or transfer them to quantum safe addresses. Also, there are posts like this one that demonstrate there exist miners (or Satoshi maybe) who haven't spent their early coinbase rewards but possess the private keys. I take it as granted that they will protect them from quantum computers. |
|
|
|
You can't. That's why I said it would be impossible to prove P2PK ownership, or P2PKH ownership for that matter. Using seed as a filtering criteria can be very unfair and doesn't exactly allow all of the rightful owner to gain access to their coin. Sure, I'd be very against on any such protocol. It is practically infeasible and pointless. This is fairly bad if you consider that this would be around 10% of the entire circulation of Bitcoin. This is 10% of the entire circulation. They are not provably lost. We should consider that they can potentially enter the market at any time. In fact, I do consider it probable that Satoshi and the rest of the early miners will transfer them to quantum safe addresses when the time comes. Whether the lawful owners of these coins or attackers bring them into circulation, it will be equally bad for the Bitcoin economy. |
|
|
|
You can buy the GLD ETF at whatever fraction you want, and this is all done on the Internet. But sure, if you don't like gold, there are millions of other investments you can try (and you can buy REIT shares if you want to expose yourself to real estate, for instance). But, are these as flexible as Bitcoin? Bitcoin is really the investment of the layman. They don't need to sign any documents, nor trust any financial institutions. Just create a wallet, and have coins sent to it. Lots and lots of investors have been burned throughout the years by being convinced, "it will never go down" when discussing their favorite thing to invest in. I guess all I could say is, be careful with that, and keep a diverse portfolio. No financial instrument is "invulnerable". By "invulnerable", I don't mean "always going up". I mean that it does not come with the aforementioned drawbacks of gold, stocks, real estate etc. That's why I consider it superior in terms of an instrument to put your savings to. |
|
|
|
Yep, that is one of the main concerns. I see only a way to go with this: Introduce new transaction formats and I'm fairly sure proof of ownership for P2PK outputs are difficult or close to impossible How can you prove ownership of P2PK outputs beyond by having the signature? Modern wallet software which use BIP39 etc., and has an extra layer above key pairs, like seed, can work like proof of ownership. For example, an attacker can work out the private key of a public key, but the true owner knows the seed that derives every key. Either you burn them, or you let the adversary take it. What is the argument that supports burning coins? Sounds very anti-Bitcoin to me. If the owner has lost access to their bitcoin, then they're already "burned" for them. Why does the network have to speak for them? |
|
|
|
Does this create a scenario where all users must transfer their Bitcoin holdings to these new quantum-resistant addresses? Yes. All Bitcoin holders will have to generate keys that are quantum resistant and transfer their coins there. Moreover, the consideration arises regarding the implications for dormant Bitcoin holdings, such as those belonging to Satoshi. Without an entity to initiate the transfer to these fortified addresses, does this proposition imply the eventual reactivation of dormant bitcoins? Probably. If Satoshi does not transfer them to the future quantum safe addresses, then they'll end up being stolen. Will all "lost" coins eventually be reclaimed by the advancement of quantum computing? Depends on the definition of "lost". Not all lost coins can be reclaimed. Coins sent to public keys whose private keys are considered "lost" by their owners, can be reclaimed. Coins sent to addresses which haven't revealed their private keys cannot be claimed by solving the ECDLP (as with the former), until they spend their coins and be forced to reveal it. These coins' vulnerability to being claimed will depend on how quickly the attacker can solve the ECDLP. For example, if they can solve it in less than 10 minutes, then they could double-spend your transaction while it is unconfirmed. I'm not the best person to discuss quantum computers, but to alleviate your concerns, I believe that by the time they pose a significant threat, people will have already transitioned to quantum-safe algorithms years in advance. |
|
|
|
Decimals. Fund their faucet. To see their system or hardware wallet to work with a number that large. There are lots and lots of reasons. I don't often get a chance to talk to our users, but I do ask when I can and if I can be nosy. I don't want to be absolute. There might be usage of large amounts. It just makes no sense to me. Whatever I can program to work for large amounts will work for small amounts as well, unless I'm running a testnet faucet. We do have a warning on the main market page. Okay, that's good. It takes time and energy. ... to test them. If you don't want to test the coins, then simply don't mine them. If you mine them for the sole purpose of selling them, then that just goes against the functionality of testnet which depends on tBTC having no monetary value. If you finished your tests and mined tBTC, then just give them to a faucet or to someone who needs them. |
|
|
|
Imagine a "security expert" who: - does not know what's an unsigned int. - had their email account hacked multiple times. - had their Bitcoin private keys compromised. - blaming someone else for using his computer. Very expert. Such wow! Definitely the Bitcoin creator!  |
|
|
|
If you want an investment instrument that is not effected by monetary policy, there are literally millions of such investments. Gold, stocks, commodities, land, betting, and hundreds of other categories. - You cannot send gold via the Internet. It is not easy to divide it in separate pieces. It is difficult and expensive to transfer. You cannot own exactly 0.01567 ounces of gold. You don't know much gold there is. You cannot have divided possession with gold, and the list goes on and on. - Stocks can be inflated if the company decides to raise capital, which will dilute the value of the existent stocks. - Land can be confiscated. You cannot own 12.345678% of a house. You cannot transfer a house unless the buyer will come and live in that location. It is also very expensive to own and preserve a house. Bitcoin is invulnerable to all sorts of previous financial instrument drawbacks. The formula for Coca Cola and Viagra hadn't changed either I don't think Coca Cola's formula is exactly the same as it was when it was presented as medicine. Either way, my point is that the utility of Bitcoin hasn't changed. It remains peer-to-peer cash, that is socially resistant to any sort of governmental intervention. It's just that more people view it as an investment. |
|
|
|
Cuz if Tether is being printed out of thin air, then that means MILLIONS of people have gotten Tether for free. Has it crossed your mind that Tether can issue USDT out of thin air and sell them as dollar pegged? Has it also crossed your mind that Tether would never make the catastrophic claim that they print money out of thin air? But the idea that its all just printed out of thin air, well thats an outrageous claim and it will continue to be a stupid claim until literally anyone can show any proof at all that Tether has ever printed any USDT out of thin air. I don't understand why it seems such a big conspiracy theory to you. We've experienced a lot of unethical business behavior in the crypto space years now, especially in exchanges and stable coins which were operating under fractional reserve banking, providing zero protection on behalf of them, completely lacking regulation and deposit insurance. There exist court documents (as shown in the link above) which present how they use all these centralized coins to bail themselves out and engage in illegal activities in general. All I'm saying is, USDT is widely used and every day people are buying it with dollars, 1 to 1. So we know for a fact that USDT is not just fake money. You probably don't understand how fractional reserve banking works: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking. If you practice fractional reserve banking, then you can't have 1-of-1 peg. You might present that your system contains 1 million dollars, but it collapses the moment people attempt to withdraw 1/10th of them. |
|
|
|
Satoshi et. al. created Bitcoin as a boutique means of value transfer for those who could not safely use a means of value transfer accessible to the government (and it's worth noting that Bitcoin mostly failed in this goal because of the public ledger can be triangulated by the authorities). It remains inaccessible in terms of monetary policy, though, and I think that's the game changer. The fact that everyone can view the ledger was a feature from the very first day. Privacy techniques were developed later on. Satoshi created a peer-to-peer electronic cash system for those in need, and it remains with these characteristics. The fact that a few people (or the majority, if you wish) see it as an investment instrument doesn't change the fact that it is censorship-resistant, borderless cash. Therefore, the Coca Cola and Viagra analogies are flawed, because the concept of Bitcoin hasn't changed since it was set in stone. Only the interpretation of its intrinsic value might have changed (i.e., better store of value than cash), which if you read more about it, you will notice it was part of the concept as well: As a thought experiment, imagine there was a base metal as scarce as gold but with the following properties:
- boring grey in colour
- not a good conductor of electricity
- not particularly strong, but not ductile or easily malleable either
- not useful for any practical or ornamental purpose
and one special, magical property:
- can be transported over a communications channel
If it somehow acquired any value at all for whatever reason, then anyone wanting to transfer wealth over a long distance could buy some, transmit it, and have the recipient sell it.
Maybe it could get an initial value circularly as you've suggested, by people foreseeing its potential usefulness for exchange. (I would definitely want some) Maybe collectors, any random reason could spark it.
I think the traditional qualifications for money were written with the assumption that there are so many competing objects in the world that are scarce, an object with the automatic bootstrap of intrinsic value will surely win out over those without intrinsic value. But if there were nothing in the world with intrinsic value that could be used as money, only scarce but no intrinsic value, I think people would still take up something.
(I'm using the word scarce here to only mean limited potential supply) |
|
|
|
I think the war you are fighting is inside your head, because nobody else sees this battle but you. Even though we've had our disagreements with pooya in the past, I can understand him to an extent. The basic disagreement we've had was that he supported the notion that blockchain must not be used for anything beyond monetary, whereas I supported the notion that as long as you have enough money to waste, any kind of transaction that complies with the rules is acceptable. And --in general-- the monetary incentives and disincentives is what retains the game theory in practice, not arbitrary ethics. However, it needs to be said that Ordinals could not have brought into existence (at least in that form) without the coincidental removal of the script size limit (which up to this date I feel as if it was not deliberate?). |
|
|
|
[...] Dear crew mate. Forgive me for completely ignoring this. BlackHatCoiner: The Magician. BlackHatCoiner was a joker at the old palace. He was always against the King and was willing to help the Queen to dethrone him. "No Gods or Kings. Only Bitcoin foxes". BTW, you reminded me of Game of Thrones! I hope we don't share the same ending, though. (And I was thinking which series I should re-watch, now I know)At first, he wanted to be good with everyone, but as time passed, he knew that some foxes would be a pain. Therefore, he decided to expose their lack of Bitcoin knowledge publicly Hmm. Interesting. What gave you this impression about me? I don't feel like I've been that kind of guy. Prepare for celebratory shenanigans.
Shall we prepare ourselves for some flawless timings?  |
|
|
|
|
Because Bitcoin is complex, and complex projects are better to be programmed in object oriented programming. It also comes with rich libraries like STL, which reduce the overall chance for making a mistake, and it improves performance.
C is (usually) faster than C++, but I wouldn't want Bitcoin's source code to be a monster like the Linux kernel, even if it was slightly faster (which isn't necessarily to be the case).
|
|
|
|
The people making the outrageous claim are the ones who have the burden of proof. If I argue that I have a billion dollars, so I can issue a billion BlackHatCoins, each pegged with a dollar, then the burden of proof lies on me. It is me who claims a positive, and needs to provide proof of reserves, not you to disprove that I don't have any; how could you ever accomplish such a thing in the first place? Thinking Tether is fake was sooooo 2017 haha. I actually can't believe people are still harping on about that lol
It is not that I believe they have absolutely nothing in reserve; not having enough reserves is shady enough for me. In this post, it is demonstrated that Tether were capable to only provide evidence of just 14% of their "reserves". You can read more about it, and see yourself that USDT is not 1-of-1 backed by USD and they're essentially one big fractional reserve business. In fact, I can't believe it's 2024 and people still put trust in stablecoins after all the incidents of stable coins and supposedly "legit" and "reputable" CEXes collapsing one after the other. |
|
|
|
They're not supposed to have value, but the cost to mine testnet is real. So, if the utility does not outweigh the cost, simply don't mine it. Leave it to be mined by people who want to test. Mining a worthless coin with the hope of selling it for a price makes no sense. If no block has been found in 20 minutes, then the difficulty resets back to minimum, so cost is ~0. The last reset was 10 years ago... I'll believe it when I see it. The last reset was 10 years ago, because it's worked fine by now. If we start setting up "testnet marketplaces", I'm sure people will either abandon testnet and go to signet, or just create testnet 4. |
|
|
|
Does this mean that you can also create unsigned transactions with the GUI client? You certainly can, but you'll probably have to use the console, unless there exists a GUI setting I'm unaware of. However, if the wallet is watch-only, you can copy the PSBT to clipboard according to this SE post: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/99112/134811. Maybe making a separate transaction for each utxo to a new bc1 address in the new wallet to have relatively easy-to-read transactions. What's the problem with doing what nc50lc says? You're risking losing more money in fees. If you set the transfer amount slightly below the balance of the utxo, then that is automatically the fee right? Right. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin Testnet reward is 0.02 coins every 20 minutes. If someone wants 1000 coins they are going to be using a fair bit of electricity and time. A better question is: why would one want 1000 tBTC? What do they have to offer that 0.01 tBTC cannot offer? I own this exchange and I decided to offer this market. People are lining up on both sides. I don't think that makes me or the users dishonest. Everyone is happy that uses it. You're just speeding up the testnet reset. The more people treat it as currency, the less purpose it has. You should at least display that these units are worthless and can be reset at any time. The only people upset are the ones who want to wave a magic wand and say "This has no value!!!!" Which is exactly what people have done with Bitcoin!!! You don't understand that mainnet and testnet are apples and oranges. Testnet coins must not have value. It is not open for debate. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
