|
Rename to ICO and DeFi scams...
|
|
|
|
Or with that reply, are you simply trolling?
I think I understand how Bitcoin works very well, I don't need you to certify a degree for me to acknowledge my level of understanding of how Bitcoin works - I had a very simple question in this thread which was referring to the high fees and the mempool, and I saw no other thread about this in this forum, at least not recently - assuming most people are happy to pay high fees - but I'm not ... I took the initiative to ask "what's going on" and got some nice information here ... you seem to turn this into a personal attack. I don't know you and I am not interested in knowing your opinion, if you have a minor issue with this thread you don't have to respond nor be an *** about it. I believe you don't truly understand, because if you truly did, you wouldn't be compaining in a way that is unconstructive. Bitcoin is slow, and inefficient because maintaining the network's censorship-resistance/decentralization - it's main value proposition, and making it scale out is HARD. The Core developers don't have the power to bend the laws of Physics. Nope, there is no such decentralization... that is only twitter based brain wash args by core / Blockstream Clean Bitcoin works with unlimited block size like a champ. Segwit, LN, ... whatever was just a brutal attack. Now ppl pay the price |
|
|
|
But let's be on topic. Blockchains are NOT distributed systems. I haven't seen a post that tells me I'm wrong.
That's because you consider a system to be either distributed or not distributed, with nothing in between. I don't think any system could be considered distributed by your criteria. It wasn't "my criteria". It's about what Bitcoin/blockchain networks are. That each node in the network re-validates and re-processes everyone's transactions. Again, all the non-mining nodes do no processing here, they relay / route at best. Compare as open banking api clients, consuming what banks / payment processors create ( mine ) for them. With those consuming clients you might just be out of sync with the mining network if you store some account data and find out later in the process, that sth went 'wrong' with what the mining processors produced for you ( new block / new longer chain / rewrite a lot what consumer nodes have stored before). But nothing you can do here, except try to mine a correct block on top and claim that your process chain is the correct one. So only miners keep it up and running Like banks/ swift/ ach network. Those are the processors, the trusted parties. Your home non mining hobby node does nothing in terms of trust Huge processors wont never ever trust those data, they run bigger ones, higher connected (to other strong miners prior), fast and expensive - cause their profits depend on that The world is not equal, esp when there is profit. PoW is such |
|
|
|
Weiss man eigentlich irgendwas gesichertes was paypal genau vor hat?
Jedenfalls wird es für den Laien schwieriger sein, einen Buchgeld-Bitcoin von einem echten zu unterscheiden, als das bei Gold der Fall ist, wo ja ein Blick in ein szenetypisches HipHop Gebiss genügt.
Trading Margen bei jedem Kauf/Verkauf - evtl auch Custody Gebühren, wer weiss was sonst noch - die brauchen Kursverläufe, rauf runter und Umsatz |
|
|
|
You Chinese, bro? 880!  Muchas gracias mi amigo  Lol, One of the biggest Finger Pointer ever Made finger pointing great again I ll call my biggest finger the big trump, sorry my thumb |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is about the White Paper and its legal definition Not about specific ppl and their own understanding or agendas But, meh - bad Aussie is too good target, easy to: 'don't listen!' https://youtu.be/tPecIL1FEM4  |
|
|
|
Einführung von KYC bei dezentralen Exchanges. Wallets werden auch irgendwann folgen.
Na, dann erklär mir mal, wie das bspw im Fall von Bitcoin Core funktionieren soll. Wen will man da zur Einführung von KYC überreden und wie soll das ablaufen? Wer wäre da der Ansprechpartner? Nun, ich will ja niemand auf bestimmte Ideen bringen, aber es wäre z.B. eine Bestimmung möglich, dass jeder, der gewerblich auf einer wie auch immer gearteten Exchange - also egal ob zentral oder dezentral organisiert - Bitcoins gegen Fiat handelt, die Identität des Handelspartners erfragen muss. Es wäre also nicht die Exchange der Ansprechpartner, sondern der Händler selbst. Bei Privatverkäufern wäre das aber sicherlich schwer möglich ohne in elementare Rechte einzugreifen. Und bei dezentralen Exchanges wäre es auch nicht ohne weiteres feststellbar wer gewerblich und wer privat handelt. Dafür gibt es dann in der Tat keinen Ansprechpartner (wenn sie wirklich dezentral ist). Ich glaube und hoffe aber, dass eine derart restriktive Regelung nicht kommen wird. Ja, wenn... Und wie war das nochmal? Verfolgt wird immer die Spur des Geldes, gerade wenn es viel ist. Damit wird schon privat von gewerblich gefiltert, also keine Chance für die Grossen, insbesondere wenn man das auf der Chain recht einfach nachverfolgen kann, bezw der Grosse es muss bevor der alt aussieht. Dezentral hört mit genügend Grösse einfach auf, da beißt die Maus kein Bitcoin ab |
|
|
|
Covid exploding all across Europe And the US. Just coincidentally right at the start of flu season and we all know the coronavirus has been around for some 50+ years and another name for it is the flu. That said, prepare for what I predicted 6 years ago: deadly virus on bills spreading the virus, quick hurry, ban cash, BABIES ARE DYING. Cue ver. Lol. Hey, where’s that war on bitcoin and crypto - looks like fiat about to have a massive heart attack. CLEAR!!! But yeah, btc starting to pump [for no reason] coincidentally again right as flu season starts. It’s gonna be crazy. Like Max Max insane crazy. But hey’ll we’ll be rich but what are you gonna buy and enjoy given this will probably last at least 2 years and people will be dropping like flies. Especially the mask loving ones. The TV watching, Fearful group thinkers And the boomers. Hey, Can’t start a new world economy without a clean balance sheet. Lol I’m gonna be the most depressed billionaire, but I’ll try to cope. Gulp! Don't mind, it just dosn t matter whether billionaire or average Joe, there must be a task , a goal , a love to be found that will make you happy and enable you for next tasks , goals ,... - that's life. There is no perfect world, for a reason:) |
|
|
|
|
BitCoin is to use for the ppl as electronic cash system for micro / nano fees (free)
PayPal, Revolut and hodl ponzi is no help at all (except number up shill trolls), good to see BitCoin is free of that shit
Happy days
|
|
|
|
Cheers. Satoshi gave a lot I wonder what he might still wish for birthday?  |
|
|
|
Was wirklich stört ist, daß es sich hier um "Paypal Coins" ( Buchgeld) handelt, die u.a. an BTC angelehnt sind. Damit handelt es sich um klassiches Giralgeld bzw. ein IOU, welches mit ein paar zusätzlichen Einschränkunen versehen ist. Diese Paypal Coins haben mit Bitoin weniger zu tun als Euro Giralgeld mit dem gesetzlichen Zahlungsmittel: Es gibt nicht mal eine Auszahlungsverpflichtung des Basisintruments. Clever (für Paypal, nicht für den Kunden!) ist, daß Paypal damit unbegrenzt BTC schöpfen kann, solange die Kunden beim schröpfen mitspielen. hallo Mezzo, junger Zentralschweiz See Fahrer!  als ich Dich gesehen habe musste ich mich gleich anmelden. zum Thema: für mich klingt die PayPal Bitcoin Geschichte nicht nach IOU, oder irre ich mich da? das wäre natürlich eine ganz perfide Masche wenn sie wirklich nicht die ganzen gekauften PayPal-Buchgeld-BTC in echte BTC als Reserve im Hintergrund als Cold-Wallets rumliegen hätten. Dann müssten Sie einen "Bankrun" (Auszahlungsversuch eines Grossteils der User im Falle einer Panik) um jeden Preis verhindern. Davon gehe ich nicht aus, denn dann wäre die ganze Story wertlos weil auch die reale Nachfrage an den freien Märkten nach Bitcoin nicht nachziehen würde wenn User in PayPal Bitcoin kaufen. EDIT: auch von der zur erwartenden Wertsteigerung von BTC durch die FIAT entwertung der kommenden jahre macht es keinen Sinn sich nicht durch echte BTC im Hintergrund zu hedgen. aber es könnte sein sie machen es über BTC Futures- oder Optionskontrakte und nicht durch Bitcoin über den Spot Markt. Ja da bin ich mal gespannt wie sie es umsetzen. Buchgeld wäre aber zu riskant. Stell dir vor BTC zieht auf 1 Mio an... das dürfte auch Paypal in Bedrängnis bringen, wenn sie keinen BTC halten, im Ausgleich für den eigenen Buchbestand der Kunden. Könnte man wie bie Gold ne Zeit lang mit Derivaten wie Futures, Optionen, ... hedgen, ohne 'physiche' Lieferung... geht schon |
|
|
|
ich gehe da nämlich schon von einem "Stabilitätsboost" dadurch aus.
Ich will keine Stabilität.  Maoam? Was sonst. Ich will Funktionalität, echte. Das hölfe Bitcoin auf lange Sicht |
|
|
|
pure coincidence.
Some evil bastards really wanna push a holy war between white Christians and Muslims.
Yeah. Wonder who might that be Invisible hand of some evil cult... Yeah, I think so too but I don’t know who. I’ve seen quotes by a big freemason from Long ago who said that was part of the Freemason plan. Some point to some Jewish conspiracy. It is definitely a cult and it it’s pure evil - and very high probability they’re deep into the occult too. I’ve felt it a few times - they use witches. It won’t be long and things will be illuminated. One way or another. The good news is that although there will be much blood of the innocent spilled - it will not be in vain, (for their number has been counted since before time) and in the end the Light and the good shall conquer all. After all, what power does darkness have over light? Darkness is simply the absence of Light. I really wish with more options for education + critical thinking / more incentives for thinkers at all some issues with some few ppl doing and wanting masses to do their wrong things will go away. Hopium? |
|
|
|
You're damaging freedom of expression and open up free censorship out of personal complacency. Since you insist you will be rightly served. Thus spake the shill for bank cartels and tyrannical régimes. As BitcoinSV is bank compatible can the technology be carried under BSV or backed up?
Crime Cartel: BitMEX, Kraken, Binance, Bitcoin.com, Blockstream & Ethereum
[...]
One only has to ask: Is this entity pro-regulation and anti-secrecy, like Dr. Craig Wright’s Bitcoin SV?
[...]
It seems that everything is tightening up, even BTC ETH and XPR will be banned in the kingdom united by FCA (Financial Conduct Authority) starting at January 2021 https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/fca-bans-sale-crypto-derivatives-retail-consumers See that BSV is legal! Time will be your witness...  What you are doing is not honest - you take sentences from articles that I quote and then paste them in, take the context out to model a false attribution. This is dishonest, as is attacking the work of hundreds of people without constructing anything useful except gossip. You are here to convince yourself of your own bullshit. For almost 2 years you have been targeting BSV, the company nChain, Calvin Ayre, crypto supporters, enthusiasts and especially Craig Wright, through various pseudonyms on multiple social networks. These are concrete facts and more serious beforehand since you had already started the same circus to go after people with BCH according to your Bitcointalk history. All you produce are corridor noises, out of context, manipulated, you denigrate, you display, you clearly have multiple attacks. Your actions are like those of a compulsive and obsessive mental patient. You have several pseudonyms here, this has been noted several times. You must realise how far you are going, this is serious! I suggest that you be diagnosed in an emergency, that you be weaned off social networks. Having your obsessive delusions cured could certainly be very useful to you. The history of your writings and your behaviour as a powerful asshole is proof of this. ----
Bitcoin is bound under contractBitcoin is a technical and economical phenomenon. However, there are legal dimensions to Bitcoin that are hidden to most but vital to understand as they hint at how things might play out in the future—especially concerning BSV in comparison to BTC.
Dr. Craig Wright has published an article called “Forking and Passing Off” on his website. While there are different legal topics presented in the article, I will only focus on the contractual side of Bitcoin today.
The topic of Bitcoin as bound under contract is also discussed by Dr. Craig Wright, Joel Dalais https://coingeek.com/joel-dalais-bitcoin-is-a-1000-year-mission/ and myself here:
Time to realize Bitcoin is a contract
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NlMHu5P5U0
In the article, Dr. Craig Wright says:
Bitcoin has an issuer. In January 2009 (…) I issued 21 million bitcoin, where each individual bitcoin is an indivisible set of 100 million tokens. To distribute the tokens (…), I set up a contractual arrangement where nodes (which many people call miners today) act within a set of common rules that I defined.
Pay attention to the passage, “I set up a contractual arrangement.” Bitcoin is bound under contract. But what does that mean?
Bitcoin is not just code running on its own since inception
A contract is an agreement between parties that creates mutual obligations.
Concerning Bitcoin as bound under contract, it means that Satoshi Nakamoto made an offer (unilateral, meaning to anyone who is willing to accept and fulfill the terms) and nodes (miners) accept this offer by enforcing the Bitcoin rules (validating transactions, creating blocks).
What are the obligations though? From Satoshi Nakamoto’s side, he declares to pay the nodes for performing work in the Bitcoin network by the automatically distributed Bitcoin block rewards. From the node’s side, they simply have to accept the offer and perform their work—if successfully done, they get remunerated in Bitcoins.
This is—in short—the Bitcoin contract.
The unilateral contractual offer is still ongoing in Bitcoin SV to this very day. Dr. Craig Wright writes in his “Forking and Passing Off” article:
“As long as the rules of Bitcoin, the basic protocol does not change, I am bound under a unilateral contract to the nodes, acting as agents within the system.”
Differentiating issuance and distribution
When Dr. Craig Wright initially brought Bitcoin into existence, all Bitcoin tokens (satoshis) were issued. That means there are no “new coins to be found” by miners/nodes, no Bitcoins are “created” when block rewards are paid out. All Bitcoins are already issued, period.
What nodes do is distribute the already issued Bitcoins, acting as agents of Dr. Craig Wright.
The transfer of ownership of Bitcoins from the creator of Bitcoin to the nodes happens in the distribution. Dr. Craig Wright is paying the nodes for their work in the Bitcoin network with transferring ownership of the Bitcoins to the nodes:
Node operators are paid at a predetermined rate, based on a combination of a decreasing subsidy and the collection of fees from users of the network. (…) The tokens are paid as consideration for the effort of validating transactions to the nodes.
Let us look at BTC then, especially since SegWit
For BSV, which is the original Bitcoin according to the Bitcoin whitepaper, all of this is not a problem at all. We are sure who the issuer of Bitcoin is, and we know the contract is still ongoing as nodes enforce the rules set by Satoshi Nakamoto.
However, what about BTC concerning the contractual arrangement?
Since SegWit was implemented, BTC nodes stopped enforcing the Bitcoin rules according to the whitepaper as well as the Bitcoin website from 2008 and the end-user license agreement (EULA) in the original Bitcoin software (which are, as a mixture, the content/basis of the Bitcoin contract).
From a sole contractual perspective, this means that BTC miners are not in a contract with Satoshi Nakamoto anymore. This leads to a lot of questions:
Who did issue the SegWit-coins?
Who is distributing them?
Who is offering “BTC/SegWit” to the BTC nodes?
What is the content of the “BTC/SegWit contract”, as it cannot be the original Bitcoin whitepaper?
What about BTC nodes that mined BTC before SegWit (in accordance with the original Bitcoin contract) and then switched to mining SegWit (not in accordance)? Have they violated non-contractual or secondary contractual obligations (bad faith / deceptive practices / non proper care)?
Keep in mind: when Dr. Craig Wright issued all Bitcoins, Bitcoin had little or no valuation/market cap, you could say there was no value to Bitcoins back then. So he basically issued something that was not worth anything (and he even incurred hard costs to issue and set up Bitcoin).
This is different in BTC/SegWit though. When SegWit was implemented, which means an issuance and distribution of a new digital asset, BTC/SegWit-Coin already traded at a very high valuation.
If you issue a billion dollar worth of coins, you have an issue. And this issue is: taxes.
Bitcoin SV is stable in more ways than we thought
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBkLgATDigg
The whole contractual perspective on Bitcoin helps us understand that Bitcoin SV is not only
1) stable code-wise (locked down protocol on a software level),
2) economically stable (stable foundation to build onto),
3) but also contractually stable.
Bitcoin SV nodes are enforcing the original Bitcoin rules and are getting enumerated accordingly. They are in an ongoing contractual agreement with Dr. Craig Wright.
Users and even nodes do not have “a say” in this contract, as the unilateral offer in itself is not negotiable.
Dr. Craig Wright recently wrote an article called “The Myth of Bitcoin as a Voting System”:
I wasn’t ever voted into the system; I created Bitcoin, and I didn’t give over the control of the protocol. (…) There are no democratic changes that come from miners, or, as they are really called, nodes. The only changes in Bitcoin are cosmetic or selectively created, within the protocol. I set the protocol in stone so that there wouldn’t be any voting on anything other than on honesty. It is how Bitcoin really works.
There is no voting in Bitcoin as many BTC proponents think. You cannot just democratically vote yourself into a contract between private parties. Democracy is a political structure, while contracts are legal structures.
Users of Bitcoin are not part of the contractual agreement between Satoshi Nakamoto and the nodes, and even the nodes cannot “vote” afterwards on the contractually set rules.
Therefore, Bitcoin SV is not only stable on a software level and economically, but is also stable as bound under contract.
Source: https://coingeek.com/bitcoin-is-bound-under-contract/ Thanks to Dr. Michael Wehrmann Here is an article reported here that leads to an interesting consideration Oh yes, nice written up and with some tough German contribution of quality. Meh, some might not like / few will understand:) Regulators getting a guide |
|
|
|
Vielleicht besser so, sonst gibts hier noch Schiffbilder, und die haben s bekanntlich nicht so mit Abheben, eher mit Untergehen  |
|
|
|
This and schnorr, taproot, coinjoin, LN .... see and wait It's ll about purpose and responsibility |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
