oh and the 'big block' '100mb block '2mb block" is again ignoring what bitcoin scaling is. its about transaction count increases and decreasing the fee per use.. but yea you will shy away from talking about onchain transaction increase discussions. as many LN fans always do.
I'm not shying away! Then we say the blocks stay at 1MB? Let's say you magically get a transaction down to 10 Bytes each (impossible but let's say it). That's 100,000 tx/block (maximum 'transaction count increase'). This would yield 166 transactions per second. Clearly not enough. LN is not processing (166-7) 159 transactions a second. so bitcoin does not need to be 24x transaction capacity. to meet demands.. .. sorry but LN is not that popular real world utility puts real people only buying 1-5 things a day. meaning with real life usage of 33000 LN nodes (actually less users due to some having more then one node, but lets pretend each node represent a user) 33,000*5 (yep im helping your side by exagerating) is 165,000 A DAY!! (not a second) which actually becomes 2tx/s extra demand to cope with LN users if all LN users retreated back to using onchain. and no. dont 'do a rath'. by showing a users "events" (success or fail) as an example of a users real life usage. those events are counts of routing. where 1 persons payment for a coffee appears as events on multiple peoples logs. but is still only one actual payment had been made. so yea no need to pretend bitcoin needs to leap from 7 to 166.. and instead just needs more of a 7 to 10 scaling and also you have ignorantly tried to avoid the 'scaling bitcoin transactions' discussion by stating a silly 'stick at 1mb size' and then adding in an impossible scenario of transaction being 10 bytes.. to make it look like bitcoin cant scale.. which is another sweep under the carpet of actual utility of space. heres a real option. 4mb is deemed hardware safe. so remove the cludgy code that still insists portions of data stick in a redundant 1mb space. and actually utilise the 4mb space to allow 4x transaction capacity compared to 1mb EG the 1.5mb-2mb segwit has not yielded a 1.5x-2x capacity increase of transaction count due to the cludgy code. if say the devs actually insist on a 2mb block (without the 1mb multiplier cludgy segwit weight math crap) then that 2mb can actually achieve 2x transaction capacity. other things can be done too. like limit the sigops of transactions. so that a block is not filled by just 5 transactions(if someone wanted to) and instead allow more of the space to share with more users. also fee formulae can be added. to punish people that 'spam' blocks with just 1confirm transaction spends. thus again allow more room for genuine people that just want to buy things once or twice a day. due to the lack of mixers/spams every block.
trying to make bitcoin the "reserve" where only hubs, exchanges doing batch withdrawals, and mixers doing spam transactions.. where everyone else is forced to use other networks.. is not the direction people should be aiming for |
|
|
|
|
never said that no one should have choices.
i always said to not advertise LN as
"its bitcoin"
"it is the solution"
"bitcoin cant do this, come use something else"
where the motive and narrativce is not choice. but being shown an exit
if you want to play with millisat messages and channel databases that are measured in millisats. where you dont actually save a blockchain formatted template to your hard drive. but be under the illusion that you think its 'bitcoin' that your choice.
just dont go trying to tell everyone that LBN is the future end place people should all move to with silly excuses of 'bitcoin cant scale'
oh and the 'big block' '100mb block '2mb block" is again ignoring what bitcoin scaling is. its about transaction count increases and decreasing the fee per use.. but yea you will shy away from talking about onchain transaction increase discussions. as many LN fans always do.
and instead make the conversation sound more like "bitcoin weight" vs LN capacity.
just to set an image in peoples minds that bitcoin is about bloat and LN is about capacity.
as for you saying that bitcoin is 0.08 minimum
250byte = 1sat/byte =250sat is ~9cents. but. here is the thing. 1sat/0.01kbyte. can make transactions 25sat for a 250byte tx.
after all bitcoin already has fee calculation code cludge that doesnt actually count full length raw data as full length. so new fee mechanisms can be added to 'round' bytes up to the next significant number
i didnt even say everyone should be full nodes(archive and validate)
i have always said
dont advertise
less than full nodes as being full
that everyone should prune where its falsely portrayed as still full
that people should use other networks, which would decrease the current diversity/population of full nodes due to users dropping full nodes in replacement for altnet lite apps for their daily use
|
|
|
|
They are a huge organization that relies on dollars and so that's the reason why they're putting their trust in it instead of letting El Salvador do its thing alone, they want to intervene as it seems doesn't look for them. What's the matter if a country wants to adopt it as a legal tender and they actually have passed it and went through a process and made a bill for it. I think this is one of the reasons why many countries don't like to stand with these international orgs because they are trying to interfere with anything with almost everything.
the IMF have nothing to do with "trusting the dollar". their game is to set terms and conditions on countries that take loan dollars that allow the IMF to try punishing a country. EG imagine(in simple human fiat terms) you took out a bank loan at 1% interest, but the terms&conditions was that you had to prove you worked for an employer paying you dollar to stay at the 1% rate. if found that you accepted euro income your interest rate becomes variable. and you also can have other penalty fee's added. imagine on top of that you had to ensure that because your house was the collateral. you had to use 50% of the loan to renovate the home and pay your kids in a weekly pocket money allowance in dollars. all of this is to try keeping you tethered to the dollar and need to generate MORE dollars to stay afloat and repay the loan. what they dont want is for you to just start earning euros and claim dollar bankruptcy while holding euros offshore out of their jurisdiction, thus unable to seize your euro wealth.
yes the IMF should get out of the game of trying to make it appear that the dollar is no.1 power/dependant currency. realise only 320m of 8bill (<5%) actually use it.. but then the IMF wont want to advertise that china and india are the actual big players. circulating their currency through billions of people(>12% each)
heck im in the UK and i dislike that bitcoin exchange rate values bitcoin against the dollar. where the UK exchange then 'follows' the US rate, by looking at the forex and converting to then show a UK price.. rather than the UK have its own independent rate. heck even stable coins are $ denominated. rather than having multiple stable coins for pounds, euro's etc. so even the bitcoin exchanges has become dollar sheep. if the bitcoin exchange was not so US centered. people could see a change in the forex rate. and buy bitcoin. sell at dollar rate then use dollars to arbitrage a USD to GBP. and through this arbitrage, bitcoin could actually ruin the wall street forex rate of dollar by 'selling' all the dollar for pounds. thus crashing the wallstreet dollar forex market. but due to fears of influence. bitcoin exchanges dont do this, so stay 'happy friends' with us government. imagine if in 2011 when exchanges first started. all exchanges valued bitcoin to chinese Yuan instead.. the US government would not be happy |
|
|
|
|
are you using one of them 'temporary' email services.
|
|
|
|
meaning if exchange A has coins at 2% less than exchange B. someone can buy on A and sell on B in seconds and not have arbitrage risk
An arbitrage would be: Borrow some coins Sell coins on B Move liquidity From B to A Use liquidity on A to Buy back coins Give back the coins and keep the change. no, thats called "shorting" borrowing(short) short: borrow asset to sell then buy cheaper to repay the loaned asset and keep the extra or the opposite long: buy low to sell higher and keep the profits of the sell the arbitrage is the movement between the exchanges which can be used both in cases of your own funds (long) or borrowed(short) yes you can also short by selling the asset in one exchange. and hold there wait for a dip and buy back in, in the same exchange to offer back the initial asset amount to then keep the difference. but arbitrage is the use of 2 exchanges to take advantage of the difference in market price between the 2. whether its long or short |
|
|
|
|
el salvador is in debt to the IMF to the tune of $287million
el salvador bought 410($15mill) of bitcoin..
some how i think $287m debt of IMF is the real issue, and far exceeds the failed attempt to blame bitcoin for el salv' debt problems
$15m vs $287m.. um.. id be blaming the IMF(aka dollar) not bitcoin
|
|
|
|
But can IMF dictate what El Salvador will do to their monetary system?
yes https://www.imf.org/en/About/Factsheets/Sheets/2016/08/02/21/28/IMF-ConditionalityPrior actions.
These are steps a country agrees to take before the IMF approves financing or completes a review. They ensure that a program will have the necessary foundation for success.
..
Minimum level of federal government primary balance
Ceiling on government borrowing
Minimum level of international reserves
Minimum level of the general government primary balance
Minimum domestic revenue collection
Minimum level of social assistance spending
Improve financial sector operations
Build up social safety nets
Strengthen public financial management
in short when a country takes a loan. they are bound by the terms of the loan. such as a country has to then claw in enough tax income of the loaned currency to fill the government treasury of that currency. or has to offer the currency as social assistance to put it into circulation thus making it dependant on that currency. |
|
|
|
I think they're ready for it. Bukele has been buying every time the market drops and that signifies that they're pursuant to what they're doing for bitcoin and which they've adopted as a legal tender. AFAIK, IMF is a bitcoin supporter and that's from the articles that I've read years ago, maybe 2-4 years ago and now that they're questioning El Salvador to remove what they've decided to adopt bitcoin as a legal tender, isn't it that this is just a FUD and they want to give panic to the people so that everyone's going to sell and pull the prices down?
IMF supports bitcoin and crypto for its utility.. but some IMF departments are the loan officers who are tasked to make sure countries repay their SDR debts. and its this loan office department that fears el-salvador trying to get its sovereignty back. a lesson the IMF should do. is not want to peg/tie itself just to SDR(dollar) and instead have several vessels of reserve. EG 'amero' 'brics' 'crypto' where it can happily take in 3 designated currencies EG a commercial bank that only handles dollar, limits itself to a customer base of 320million people. yet a commercial bank that handles multiple international currencies has a potential customer base of near 8 billion. so far the IMF is small minded trying to exagerate the dollars power/influence by trying to get all countries around the world to be tied to the dollar. even when in the real world only 5% of the world uses dollar daily |
|
|
|
I believe such behavior can be seen in most newcomers in this market. Because if you are a long time crypto user, you already know when to buy and sell your btc. Noncrypto users will notice the btc market when it is rising, but once it is declining, a lot of people are in panic mode or don't know what to do with the market.
yes the first 6-12 months of newbie experience is that they "heard from a friend" to buy in and 10x their money quick this is why us long term bitcoiners need to ensure these "get rich quick" adverts are not promoted and instead offer advice "buy the dip, not the hype" |
|
|
|
Of these, the first is not honest and not working. I haven't seen the app used here even once. The second is not going well, and a strategy of 'buy the dip' sounds unprofessional, but I think it can be prudently executed and the amounts involved aren't that significant. The third is the most interesting idea, but the devil will be in the detail.
In order to gain and maintain confidence in the bond issuance and FX strategy, suspending the Chivo experiment may be a wise move. At the moment, it wouldn't be a major loss and the only real question it would leave is who has gained access to the facial recognition database.
yes, media has over sold "bitcoin legal tender" as if el salvador has dropped the dollar. this is not the case. its instead added a second legal tender. adding options. though at the moment the adoption and regular utility of this second option isnt much. the IMF fears the potential. the potential is if the citizens moved their wealth over to bitcoin, and just stopped using dollar. then the IMF is screwed and wont get its debts to el salvador settled. though not a immediate threat. not a short term risk. the IMF is concerned about long term risk of long term loans not being repaid should el salvadorians prefer to use bitcoin instead of dollar .. similar things were happening with UK/euro. because the UK didnt want to use the euro as a native currency. the euro banks didnt want to offer the UK euro loans. because if the UK is not circulating euro's then the euro banks have little chance of the UK generating enough euro to repay. thus allowing the UK a back door to exit out of by just claiming euro bankruptcy. whilst keeping the pound active for citizens in the UK .. well then brexit happened and we left by another door. as we refused to join the euro, when asked again to drop the pound. UK had a brexit. to cut ties with eurobank i wonder if/when el salv' will do a IMF***off |
|
|
|
Yea I'm not so sure El Salvador will pay too much attention to the IMF. It wasnt in the
IMF's interest at all that El Salvador made the move into Bitcoin and they got no
support from the IMF then.
I hope El Salvador stays strong and weathers all storms and bear markets until
the next halving in other words look to the medium to long term.
part of the announcement was triggered because el-salvador requested a SDR loan of 1.3billion and the IMF said they want to monitor el-salvadors dollar holdings and try to get el salvador to agree to a plan to reduce its debt (start paying dollar to the IMF) in short IMF is afraid el-salvador will claim bankruptcy and cut all ties to the dollar, and never repay. .. this IMF fear is based on many US cities* have gone into bankruptcy to write off US parts of national debt. which then means the US then cant pay the IMF SDR back because less cities are paying the us treasury back. IMF fears if too many cities/micronations do this bankruptcy option. then the IMF becomes dead. *The city of Detroit, Michigan,filed bankruptcy on July 18, 2013. at $18–20 billion, Vallejo, California, $18 million debt in 2008 Jefferson County, Alabama's $4-billion filing in 2011. Orange County, California, at least $1.5 billion debt 1994 San Bernardino, California, more than $1 billion in debt in 2012 Stockton, California, $700 million debt 2012 |
|
|
|
I somehow agree that we should not rely on govt products for success, but on the other hand I don't think that we can otherwise and I tell you why.
You also wrote that the shop will accept govt money because of laws, taxes and such. Shops don't have much of a reason to accept bitcoin, because it means more paperwork and also more risks (sudden price fluctuation). So if we want to use Bitcoin-as-a-coin, we may not have much of a choice than provide a "connector" between bitcoin "world" and fiat/shops/banks world.
When shop owners will start seeing Bitcoin is indeed useful and used, maybe some will start accepting Bitcoin too. But I don't think that a "revolution" will just happen. Until then, we may need to connect with CBDCs. Not seeing them as a savior or such (by far!), still.. they may come handy.
i dont see bitcoin as a take-over attempt of fiat. i dont see bitcoin as something that needs 'dollar' im in the UK and i can buy US products with my pounds. because yes there are middlemen that accept pounds and THEY convert it to dollar for the merchant. im invested in bitcoin and i can buy US products with my bitcoin. because yes there are middlemen that accept bitcoin and THEY convert it to dollar for the merchant. this DOES NOT mean my pounds need the american dollar to promote pounds. thats what forex exchanges were made for to have them hedge the risks of exchanging. so that pounds can play in UK and dollars can play in america without them being dependant on each other. i dont have to rely on US government. i can however use a private business that hedges the exchange risk where they make fee's/profits for hedging the exchange risk. ... but now lets go back to the practicality of a CBDC vs bitcoin. if a CBDC does everything faster, cheaper then bitcoin. people just wont see the point of bitcoin |
|
|
|
better link to source https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2022/01/25/pr2213-el-salvador-imf-executive-board-concludes-2021-article-iv-consultationDirectors agreed on the importance of boosting financial inclusion and noted that digital means of payment—such as the Chivo e-wallet—could play this role. However, they emphasized the need for strict regulation and oversight of the new ecosystem of Chivo and Bitcoin. They stressed that there are large risks associated with the use of Bitcoin on financial stability, financial integrity, and consumer protection, as well as the associated fiscal contingent liabilities. They urged the authorities to narrow the scope of the Bitcoin law by removing Bitcoin’s legal tender status. Some Directors also expressed concern over the risks associated with issuing Bitcoin-backed bonds.
the IMF fears bitcoin as legal tender. because if all citizens shifted their income, wealth, savings to bitcoin. then el salvador wont have any dollar to play with to settle the IMF dollar debt. thus el salvador could claim BANKruptcy. to write off the dollar debt, while not affecting citizens pockets because they dont touch the dollar. the IMF does not want to give out more dollar loans if the country is not tied to dollar to ensure they pay it back. what the IMF is not realising is el salvador wants to get away from SDR (dollar) dependency. what the IMF actually cares solely about is increasing a countries dependency on SDR |
|
|
|
making people not use the BITCOIN network. is not scaling the BITCOIN network. Alas, they do use it. They use the Bitcoin network to create channels. They couldn't have Lightning if they didn't have the first layer. And the existence of the Lightning contributes to those who want to only use the first layer. The transactions which would occur on-chain by those who use Lightning, did not happen. The chain weights less! again lightning can still function without bitcoin people can deposit fiat into an exchange, buy an asset realise bitcoin is expensive and swap to an altcoin and then use LN. people can have channels opened for them with 'inbound capacity' without the user needing to have bitcoin. (thor) heck people can even have channels that are suppose to be pegged to bitcoin transactions without there even being a confirmed transaction to peg to(turbo). so yea LN is not strictly and 100% hooked to bitcoin. calling it a layer offers a imaginary pretense of it being a protective skin for something. but LN is not a skin of bitcoin. its a bridge , a transport bypass to exit the area  you want people to think of it as a skin of bitcoin to protect bitcoin utility and add to bitcoin utility where you see "LN bitcoin" as a separate network from "ln litecoin" as if LN is a skin for each coin also you probably view it as a skin that has more 'nodes' than the encompassed coin has yet its actually a bridge between different crypto's to take people away from one to then access another where there is less nodes than the actual blockchain nodes funny part is a smart PR guy could actually sell its actual view as its niche, positively. rather than just lame tagging LN as bitcoin to pretend its made for and is for bitcoin and helps bitcoin. taking utility away, yea it does decrease the weight. but thats not scaling the weight, thats removing the weight. meaning getting rid of transactions, removal, exodus, exit. users buying their coffee with lightning apps on cell phones are not protecting bitcoin, monitoring bitcoin, helping bitcoin. its doing something else away from bitcoin where users never touch the bitcoin network. yep LN's niche of cellphone apps for people to buy coffee (not home nodes offering services) is where users never touch bitcoin. and when its time to move on from LN decide to exchange to a altcoin like litecoin to then move to an exchange to change to fiat, |
|
|
|
|
old banking use to be
wire transfers cost $10 and took 6-24hours
remittance cost more and took longer.
bitcoin offered a currency that could be used by the unbanked for small amounts at small fees (2009-2015)
but now banks can offer instant transfers for free and remittance in seconds, cheap.
also people wont run away from a CBDC because LAWS will be in place that
employee incomes would need to be paid at X rate CBDC
taxes and court fines would need to be paid at X rate CBDC
and retail purchases for sales tax reasons will need to be paid in CBDC
the only reason people would want to have an alternate currency is to 'off-shore' their hoard value away from the tax man.
bitcoin has (due to dev-politics), stifled bitcoins utility of mass unbanked populations who only receive $5 a day in wage. as the fee's are pretty much a days labour. thus bitcoin has already lost a niche of 1billion people
yea i know some will advertise the pegged networks that offer faster cheaper services. but then thats not the bitcoin network. its the pegged coin network they are advertising where users dont even touch or use the actual bitcoin network. and wont settle to the bitcoin network, again due to fees. they'll prefer to settle to an altcoin of lesser fee
bitcoin should not rely on government CBDC to hope it makes bitcoin more popular. and instead actually get back to the 2009-2015 premiss of offering people something more useful than institutional banking on the bitcoin network
|
|
|
|
It's clear that we won't ever agree that Lightning does scale. In my opinion, it does as it minimizes the transactions that happen on-chain and therefore, the weight of the chain. In your opinion, it doesn't as ITs' NoT BiTCoIn! But, that's okay. Everything's relative. heck you avoided learning what a full nodes functions consist of Huh? 1. bitcoin network. im going to emphasise this. BITCOIN NETWORK making people not use the BITCOIN network. is not scaling the BITCOIN network. it just makes people use a DIFFERENT NETWORK. this is not scaling bitcoin. its scaling another networks popularity. decreasing bitcoin network utility/popularity. you may want to hide the millisats and pretend LN is bitcoin. but LN sends payment messages in millisats. heck even the channelDB that saves channel data saves the data in millisats. 2. your numerous attempts to say that a full node doesn't not need to archive, does not need to offer Initial Block Downloads to peers. doesnt need to regularly check hashes against data... or peers and instead treat a local utxo set as golden locked. even when this database has no hash to ensure no edits happened.. you seem to have forgot alot of network backbone security/features, just to present a local view of user-only-comfort as somehow being the network full service node for network security and service. in short YOUR view of a full node is just a local-personal-use-validator |
|
|
|
Institutional investors play an important role in the increasing demand for bitcoin in the market.
some still have the mindset that it needs large whale to have large demand. when infact it can also be minnow sellers. imagine the average buyer is only investing $340 of their paycheque EG instead of offering 0.01btc for $340($34,000/btc), sellers offer 0.0099 $340($34,343.34/btc). this means little changes with minnow orders. not whales.. can affect the price alot minnow play causes /\/\ /\/\
\/\/\ or /\/\/
\/\ /\/\/
\/\ /\/whales play causes /\/\ |\/\ | or | | | |/\/\ /\/\| unless there is pretty much a vertical line in the price. its probably not a institution whale pump or dumping institutions dont play minnow games of buying up small 0.01 allotments per customer they recruit. they instead buy/sell large allotments. and then separately then offer small allotments to their customers by breaking up the large allotment privately (offmarket). these minnow customers of institutions dont play the market daily. they hoard in custodial accounts or they withdraw to private key. they dont affect the day to day price. and whale institutions havnt really been doing regular daily pump&dumps (vertical lines) most price movements is actually caused by minnow sellers selling small parts of coins instead of whole hoard |
|
|
|
looking at the last 6 months of the cheapest mining cost and the most expensive mining cost on the planet... and then adding in the market price the market price is actually right at the cheap mining cost. the last time it even came this close to touching the bottom of mining cost, was after the 2018 correction down to $4k but even then the price happily stayed in the value window of that time meaning right now bitcoin is cheap for its value, compared to other acquisition cost methods that vary depending on regions. for instance if you add in the euro-us cost. you will find that for the last 3 weeks even euro-us can buy cheaper then mine  pretty much all euope and japan and US can literally buy bitcoin cheaper then mining it. (bar some very lucky west asia/east slavic regions) |
|
|
|
People were willing to buy bitcoin at all time high prices and everyone was greedy. Now when bitcoin is half the ATH price, we see no buying pressure. It's strange that people are willing to get bitcoin at high prices but they don't buy it when bitcoin is available at fair cheap prices. This is strange bitcoin investor's psychology.
what you actually find is not everyone is/was willing take a look at mining costs in west asia/eastern slavic regions with electric costs at 4cent. they had had mining cost of 2021:20k 2022:$30k in west euro/north america regions with electric costs at 12cent. they had had mining cost of 2021:30k 2022:$40k .. in germany/japan regions with electric costs at 37cent. they had had mining cost of 2021:65k 2022:$75k what you find is when the price went to $60k plus. hardly anyone was buying. but japan/germany still found it cheaper to buy than to mine. until even they reached their break even point and stopped buying. hense why the price didnt go to 80-100k. at just below the $70k mark it was 0% buy 100% sell sentiment the same is on the bottom end. because if the price dropped below $30k now, no one can mine for profit. and everyone would be buying. meaning it would have a 0% sell and 100% buy sentiment. stopping it from going below $30k this year i can tell you this, no russian/chinese bitcoiners were buying bitcoin at $60k+ i can tell you this, no japanese bitcoiners were mining bitcoin at $30k- in short if everyone on the planet can buy coin cheaper than mine it (price is dirt cheap). then the buy pressure is there if everyone on the planet can mine coin cheaper than buy it (price is expensive). then the sell pressure is there |
|
|
|
|
there are many ways to have a CBDC without every transaction needing KYC.
EG if the transaction value is excess of 10,000 CBDD(central bank digital dollars) then its not only a signature of a spending key needed, but also a identity key needs to be added to the transaction for it to be valid to be added to a block.
this means small purchases dont need such ID attached tasks but larger purchases do
so for those that do send and receive 10,000 they need to register. but those that just play with 1-1000, dont need to register
the good thing about code is, any rule can me made in code.
these 'identity keys' dont need to be public, but instead archived in a IRS/SEC system thus your neighbour wont know how many coffee's or lambo's you bought unless they physically stalk you in the real world. but still allows the SEC/IRS to digitally monitor the large lambo's without being inundated with every purchase. and without physically stalking your front yard
..
yes people will still want to try pretending to be private by using crypto. but eventually the conversion from crypto to fiat, ends up with banks seeing the fiat move..
..
i know people think that just because a crypto exchange didnt used to self-report its customers in-house exchanges.. but as soon as you withdraw your fiat even without an exchange report.. your bank ALWAYS has reported you receiving or sending large fiat.
..
people are already using a CBC(central bank currency) and so that part is not really causing much fanfair for crypto.
however just introducing a crypto CBC atleast teaches people about the tech of public/private keys which could lead then to want some more privacy, once they get used to the concept of crypto.
EG credit cards seemed odd at first, people preferred bank notes. but once debit cards became popular and people got used to debit cards for normal life spending. then more people started also using credit cards. because they got used to the tech/method, accepting it as the norm. to use plastic instead of paper
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
