Running things comes with a cost (and here I think better high for a few good miners, instead high fees for users)
Only if you get incentives for good infrastructure, you think and are really willing to help it runs best for all users - for low fees.
You're welcome to that opinion. If you can find users who agree with that stance, you're free to form and secure a different blockchain with them (and clearly you already have). But that doesnt appear to be the stance of the users who are securing Bitcoin's network. And, since they're the ones paying the cost, it's their choice. You aren't in a position to force your ideals upon them. That's how network governance functions. If you want to change the rules to offer lower fees, find the people who agree with you and go ahead. Just don't expect others to tag along. You also have to accept the consequences of your ideals when they invariably result in a weaker and more centralised network. - is what the profit in Bitcoin just drives and emerges from, even with small blocks or whatever protocol changes , it cannot be countered / mitigated ever More centralized towards the miners, because fewer full nodes could also mean, it's easier to co-opt the network. Why choose a deaign-decision that undershoots security, instead of overshoot it?
Only open (not from anos and hiding entities) competition counters centralization - that's where we are and see original Bitcoin works as it should
Put miners on business risk - that's ok
Isn't the "competition" always open? There is no proof for ' it's easier to co-opt the network. ' Some big telecoms run the internet for you You are already in that game - good they are really professional and earn money regulated with that. ( sure, they can do lot of shit, cause things might be intransparent - esp money flows...) Bitcoin is cool, cause it is so TRANSPARENT - not anno, so you can track all that crap / fix it in our legal ways we deved for thousends of year running societies - here is your trust If you don t trust our legal system you might have problems with those - but Bitcoin lives in it. It can only help to debunk shit cause of transparent money / transaction flows - so get goverements to use it and the fun starts |
|
|
|
Uff, jetzt scheint es BitMEX an den Kragen zu gehen. Crypto Trading Platform BitMEX ‘Attempted to Evade’ US Regulations, CFTC ChargesThe U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and federal prosecutors alleged crypto trading platform BitMEX facilitated unregistered trading and other violations.
The CFTC announced Thursday it was charging BitMEX, CEO Arthur Hayes, company owners Ben Delo and Samual Reed, and corporate entities HDR Global Trading Limited, 100x Holding Limited, ABS Global Trading Limited, Shine Effort Inc Limited and HDR Global Services (Bermuda) Limited with offering U.S. customers illicit crypto derivative trading services.
Similarly, Audrey Strauss, the acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York announced that Hayes, Delo, Reed and Gregory Dwyer were being charged with violating the Bank Secrecy Act and conspiracy to violate the act. Der Bitcoin-Kurs zeigt sich aber (noch) weitgehend unbeeindruckt. Das Thema wird aktuell auch schon im WO diskutiert. https://twitter.com/stephendpalley/status/1311694266389929986BREAKING: CFTC sues Bitmex, Arthur Hayes "to enjoin their ongoing illegal offering of commodity derivatives to U.S. persons, their acceptance of funds to margin derivatives transactions from individuals and entities in the U.S., & their operation of a derivatives trading platform yay the drama we need Der ganze 'markt' ist nicht reguliert und macht nix für den Kundenschutz / eher für die eigene Taschen - da kommt sicher noch mehr - insbes wenn mehr Kunden klagen werden .... Das meiste Volumen ist NICHT bei den eher regulations-freundlichen - Lykke zB - fast pleite - Bitcoin.de - knapp ok |
|
|
|
You're welcome to that opinion. If you can find users who agree with that stance, you're free to form and secure a different blockchain with them (and clearly you already have). But that doesnt appear to be the stance of the users who are securing Bitcoin's network. And, since they're the ones paying the cost, it's their choice. You aren't in a position to force your ideals upon them.
That's how network governance functions. If you want to change the rules to offer lower fees, find the people who agree with you and go ahead. Just don't expect others to tag along. You also have to accept the consequences of your ideals when they invariably result in a weaker and more centralised network.
More centralized - whatever that means - is what the profit in Bitcoin just drives and emerges from, even with small blocks or whatever protocol changes , it cannot be countered / mitigated ever It means, like many things in life, if you buy cheap, you often get cheap in terms of quality. Sure, you might pay lower fees, but there's a greater risk of hashrate attacks due to the weaker security, weaker network governance, meaning controversial changes to the protocol could slip through more easily because there are fewer nodes to convince, more chance of people losing faith in your weaker chain and diminishing the value of your funds. If your coin is repeatedly attacked and the value goes to zero, just remember that's what you signed up for because you thought it would save you on fees. in a world of big open known registered competing mining corps , engaged with bigger regulators and acting compliant - there is no successful attacking anymore they ensure system is running for the globe at lowest fees to be max attractive that's what I ve signed for |
|
|
|
Running things comes with a cost (and here I think better high for a few good miners, instead high fees for users)
Only if you get incentives for good infrastructure, you think and are really willing to help it runs best for all users - for low fees.
You're welcome to that opinion. If you can find users who agree with that stance, you're free to form and secure a different blockchain with them (and clearly you already have). But that doesnt appear to be the stance of the users who are securing Bitcoin's network. And, since they're the ones paying the cost, it's their choice. You aren't in a position to force your ideals upon them. That's how network governance functions. If you want to change the rules to offer lower fees, find the people who agree with you and go ahead. Just don't expect others to tag along. You also have to accept the consequences of your ideals when they invariably result in a weaker and more centralised network. More centralized - whatever that means - is what the profit in Bitcoin just drives and emerges from, even with small blocks or whatever protocol changes , it cannot be countered / mitigated ever Only open (not from anos and hiding entities) competition counters centralization - that's where we are and see original Bitcoin works as it should Put miners on business risk - that's ok |
|
|
|
Yerify doesn t mean anything - you can verify what your e-Banking client shows - and go moaning about
Signature verification, checking UTXO not spend twice, checking the input actually exist, etc.  His motive for posting that is for a follow-up debate that users "don't need to run full nodes". OK, maybe we don't, MAYBE, but should the Core developers remove our ability to run one, and undershoot network security? Nobody can remove anyone to run things for Bitcoin - this is sheer open for all, for good. Running things comes with a cost (and here I think better high for a few good miners, instead high fees for users) Only if you get incentives for good infrastructure, you think and are really willing to help it runs best for all users - for low fees. The open competition here ensures true and good enough distribution & trust over time You might trust big telecoms, Google, Amazon, Apple ,... already 'enough' ? Or they would not exist... |
|
|
|
I did a bit of research about Grayscale Investments. One thing I liked about them is that 44% of their funding comes from non-institutional investors. This include individual investors, as well as retirement investors. However, I heard that their fees is quite high. From what I have heard, they charge 2% per year in fees. For comparison, most of the mutual funds have an annual fund maintenance fee of 0.25% to 0.50%.
You say it s cool that uninformed ppl's money getting 'moved' big by central decision makers ? - > What s different to banks here ? (kraken cough) We don't have any choice here because it is inevitable that the institutional money will be moving inside the crypto market, so really the only choice we have is to take advantage of it and by that I mean just go with the flow with what the big companies will be doing everytime they are moving their crypto assets, it is similar to what we are doing when whales move the market which we also move as well. I don't even think that they will give that big of a difference as even before their money is involve the market was already volatile with the whales we have. Right, I just tried to make the point that speculation is not really the first / best use case for Bitcoin at all - but rather the dumb / default one and tulip bubble happens - and .... Micropayments and inclusion of world trade - P2P & interoparable it was and still is imo - that gives it value and back to society , sustainable |
|
|
|
|
Right, Satoshi told Mike Hearn: There is only one chain
And that doesn't have SegWit forked away - don't care about tickers
Hard to learn, if you can only think number goes up on a ticker ...
|
|
|
|
switzerland is leading in crypto... you can pay your taxes in bitcoin in Zug and.... just found out there is a Hodlerstrasse in the Swiss capital Bern. google it.  the only pic I found is a bunch of junkies. Switzerland is great, has the best democracy and is maximum neutral on nearly any topic ( see eg https://www.bitcoinsuisse.com/fundamentals/what-is-bitcoin-sv) |
|
|
|
I did a bit of research about Grayscale Investments. One thing I liked about them is that 44% of their funding comes from non-institutional investors. This include individual investors, as well as retirement investors. However, I heard that their fees is quite high. From what I have heard, they charge 2% per year in fees. For comparison, most of the mutual funds have an annual fund maintenance fee of 0.25% to 0.50%.
You say it s cool that uninformed ppl's money getting 'moved' big by central decision makers ? - > What s different to banks here ? (kraken cough) |
|
|
|
The USDC stable coins are coming on the BSV blockchain 🔥 RelayX, one of the most popular BitcoinSV portfolios, has just added the USDC as a US dollar token on BitcoinSV supported 1 to 1 by the USDC (ERC20). To get started, users can sign up for this service by converting their BSVs to USDC. They can then send their USDC with the lowest fees on the market, on average 0.0007€ per transaction thanks to the BSV blockchain! The USDC-SV is issued on the smartcontracts protocol of the BSV blockchain. The development of token protocols on BSV is rapidly accelerating, including RUN, Tokenized, sCrypt, Bayesian, Elas, Bitcoin Computer, and more with innovation at both layer 2 and layer 1. The launch of USDC-SV is a major milestone as the first open and publicly available token on Bitcoin SV. Widely regarded by the crypto community in general as an impossibility, we believe this is the beginning of a token explosion on Bitcoin. A stable token has long been desired by many applications and users in the BSV ecosystem for use cases such as social media, gaming, trading, financial services, etc. RelayX also launches BSV / USDC-SV Exchange Parallel to the release of USDC-SV, RelayX is also launching BSV / USDC-SV bi-directional swaps, allowing anyone to exchange almost instantaneously between the two cryptosystems on the BSV blockchain. BSV / USDC-SV trading allows traders, businesses and users to hedge the risk of fluctuating BSV prices by instantly exchanging their BSVs for USDCs without ever leaving Bitcoin. BSV trading will no longer be limited to centralized trading, often with extremely conservative block confirmation times of 20 or more for deposits and withdrawals. Even more interestingly, one can imagine a future where the currency you use on Bitcoin applications such as Twetch or Streamanity becomes only a parameter. A viewer could pay 10 cents in USDC, while the content creator receives the funds in the form of BSV. USDC (ERC20) - issued by Circle and Coinbase, is the fastest growing stablecoin, supported by hundreds of fintech companies in their products and services. The USDC has recorded more than $50 billion in trading and settlement volume on public blockchains. In recent months, as a result of increased global demand for digital dollars, the USDC has experienced significant growth, with an increase of more than 200% in USDC outstanding from pre-pandemic levels, with more than $2.2 billion outstanding. But the explosion of Ethereum's fees has made it expensive to use. About RelayX A Bitcoin SV Superwallet allowing consumers, developers and businesses to access the blockchain. RelayX is used by thousands of people around the world and is integrated with leading Bitcoin SV applications including Twetch, Streamanity, Baemail, Dimely, ShaWars, BitPic and many others. If you feel ready to take the first step in the future, join our page and test the best applications in the Metanet at https://metastore.app/apps?sort=moneyThe most popular Metanet site to date is twetchapp, an incensurable twitter version on the blockchain, check it out! https://www.relayx.com/Yes - all cool, but here with 'ncensurable' u might not meet proper expectations - there are reasons why content may not be shown to the puplic and I guess twetch can handle such Correct me if i m wrong The better value prop is that you re the owner of your content and stay - not like twitter et al so it's not really possible to delete your stuff (once all is legit)., that should put some pressure on the nature of you content and lead to better content / less trolling ( so the theory) |
|
|
|
Less storage and less bandwidth than now but control of emission is still maintained.
That didn't make any sense. User verifies all transactions in his shard to ensure that no extra coins are injected by miners - control of emission. You said that miners/stakers are required to have all the shards. That is NOT sharding, and it makes a full node lesser than what it is in a non-sharded network.
We don't care about miners' wishes and requirements, through competition they will bear any block size as long as it brings in profit. Shards are created to accommodate reduced storage and bandwidth capacity of users. These shards are detached from each other, basically being independent currencies. But it's not something unheard of, throughout history people have been operating in parallel standards - gold, silver, copper. In the USA there were multiple coins before establishment of the Federal Reserve. Even now people in borderline zones carry two or three sorts of banknotes in their wallets. So if a technically sound and scalable solution could long-term stop corruption and legalized theft then I would say these conversions between independent currencies/shards would look like minor inconvenience. That doesn't change anything except make "full nodes" mean less than what they are in a non-sharded network. Plus the complexity for what benefit? Do we stop trusting the consensus, and start trusting each node? This is the best rabbit whole, where actually comes the trust from... I believe you misunderstood. mda was posting about the miners having all blocks in a sharded-network, but "full nodes" having only to verify "their part" of the sharded-network? Do we stop trusting the consensus and trust the other nodes that have the other part of the sharded-network? To what benefit? Yerify doesn t mean anything - you can verify what your e-Banking client shows - and go moaning about If you re out of sync and behind mining nodes you re even more in the sybil regime only miners make blocks and if they don't verify they ll lose money But still, where comes the real trust from - if there is at all ? From all the little anno sybils ? |
|
|
|
Bitcoin: Once in a species opportunity.  Observing $10873. shilling for ponzi that s it |
|
|
|
First 'stable' coin on bsv running - https://www.relayx.com/usdcBitcoin can do anything - but check if you do all legally compliant pls |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is a utility platform that can do all what any other crypto can do,
Even cheap fees once u find out independent from tickers
|
|
|
|
|
The EU is just about to do next steps for regulation.
US is half way through...
Things are coming
|
|
|
|
Less storage and less bandwidth than now but control of emission is still maintained.
That didn't make any sense. User verifies all transactions in his shard to ensure that no extra coins are injected by miners - control of emission. You said that miners/stakers are required to have all the shards. That is NOT sharding, and it makes a full node lesser than what it is in a non-sharded network.
We don't care about miners' wishes and requirements, through competition they will bear any block size as long as it brings in profit. Shards are created to accommodate reduced storage and bandwidth capacity of users. These shards are detached from each other, basically being independent currencies. But it's not something unheard of, throughout history people have been operating in parallel standards - gold, silver, copper. In the USA there were multiple coins before establishment of the Federal Reserve. Even now people in borderline zones carry two or three sorts of banknotes in their wallets. So if a technically sound and scalable solution could long-term stop corruption and legalized theft then I would say these conversions between independent currencies/shards would look like minor inconvenience. That doesn't change anything except make "full nodes" mean less than what they are in a non-sharded network. Plus the complexity for what benefit? Do we stop trusting the consensus, and start trusting each node? This is the best rabbit whole, where actually comes the trust from... The distribution is just a model, that doesn't hold in real world as it gives full trust. We have small , slow players and a few big ones. What is about now? |
|
|
|
I think the developer of bitcoin cash is now trying to be more competitive in the marketplace knowing that there are many new altcoins which is very hyping at the moment such as uniswap and chainlink, this is really a good move for them to make a hype as well so many people can also acknowledge them as one of the best top rank cryptocurrency.
Well, at least one smart person was found. Protocol renewal was planned for a long time. BCH is the largest coin by capitalization will always be in the spotlight. The rest of the coins cannot even be compared Losing the scaling race, the transaction race and the orthogonal buisness adoption race ? You win the fork for no reason and max non-compliant race - that s for sure  Good luck |
|
|
|
Source from: https://centi.ch/2020/09/23/payments-handshake-protocol/Through Centi’s outreach efforts to Point of Sales (POS) providers and commercial payment systems acquirers, we have learned a lot about the business and its structures. Centi’s goal is to integrate seamlessly and effortlessly into the existing infrastructure. To collect payments in Bitcoinsv, so called payment URIs are popular. From the user perspective this means scanning a QR-Code with the Bitcoinsv wallet. The QR-code contains the payment details which are then shown in the wallet app. This is a proven concept and has seen many implementations over the years. Nonetheless, implementing this on current POS hardware means making changes to the POS frontend which can be a cumbersome and lengthy process considering POS devices being hardware and subject to regulatory oversight. If we look at other mobile payment options, we find that wallets usually make a handshake with the POS-Terminal and then get sent the payment details to the wallet for approval, which differs conceptually from having the payment details encoded into the exposed QR-code directly. The required handshake information is shown on the POS terminal and can then serve as a basis for the handshake with wallets of different payment providers. This inspired us to think of a way to use that very same handshake-information for Bitcoinsv payments also. An implementation like this has three main advantages: 1. No changes needed to the POS-Frontend 2. No training needed for store personnel. In fact, store personnel don’t even need to know Bitcoinsv is accepted as there is not a single button to be pressed for invoicing Bitcoinsv. All this is possible whilst still using native Bitcoinsv and retaining all it’s properties and advantages. 3. No change in user experience on the wallet side. Today we proudly announce that we have co-developed the described Bitcoinsv Payments Handshake Protocol with HandCash which is the most popular Bitcoinsv mobile wallet. HandCash has a track record of constant innovation e.g. the introduction of the first handle system in the Bitcoinsv Space, which made it possible to send Bitcoinsv to human readable IDs. Just a few days ago the team announced further improvements in backup simplicity. We are aware that such a handshake protocol has value to other payment enablers and other Bitcoinsv wallets alike and it is in both companies’ best interest to grow the Bitcoinsv ecosystem further. Thus, the protocol, including wallet libraries and implementation details, will be made available publicly after a brief exclusivity period. In order to be ready for the Centi go-live, we recommend downloading HandCash from your favorite app store and subscribing to our newsletter on https://centi.ch/
Sounds great, also now that Handcash comes up with a keyless solution - all hardware wallets : byebye (true, we d need to see some proof from external cyber security / pen testings / ISO xxx audits to ensure that it works as announced) Good work! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
