85% of all Bitcoins will have already be mined by the time of the halving. How do you think Bitcoins 2020 halving will affect its price?
Of course it will affect the price. Miners will have less bitcoin to sell, so by the economic law of supply and demand, it will in theory, increase the price. As the supply is now lower Not necessary. Supply and demand forms a price. And this is not about the general supply of the coin but about the supply on the specific market (e.g. exchange). Way bigger role plays the amount of HODLers on the market. You may expect a fast pump but some FUD may happen and despite the lower general supply BTC rate could drop. |
|
|
|
|
Don't get me wrong, but I expect bullshit.
It is like movies about trading. There are 2 kinds of movies:
1. Where some genius trader forsaw a market crash and shorted everything.
2. Someone found some insights about some companies and tried to get some easy money.
Both cases have almost nothing in common with trading.
I bet that something similar gonna happen again. They will show how some guys are getting free money in the bull market for early investing and how they are using this wonderful opportunity to make their movie, become financially independent and many other good things that many heard about.
|
|
|
|
|
This post could be relevant somewhere back in 2017-2018 when cryptocurrencies had a huge amount of new users attracted by insane and fast income. Now most of these people either lost their money and disappointed in cryptocurrencies or finally realized how all those things work.
Anyway, there is no such big amount of new coins.
|
|
|
|
|
Let me be one of those greedy shitters:
Mass adoption would be the most important feature.
I don't really care how useful would be the other new features while my BTC savings worth nothing and can't be traded for anything.
The other things like immutable blocks, decentralization etc. are ofc important but they are just secondary things until we see good demand in cryptocurrencies.
|
|
|
|
Coinbase is anti-Bitcoin. To follow on from this, Coinbase have just admitted the reason they bought Neutrino was because their previous provider was caught selling client data to third parties (skip to 1:53 in the video). They don't say what data was compromised, or how long they've known for, or why they didn't inform their customers at the time. They are anti-bitcoin, anti-privacy, anti-customer. They only thing they are pro is greed. They are trying to follow all major trends that can bring them some good money. No matter how good it is for crypto environment. And imho such services should exist because if BTC won't become resistant to that kind of things then it will fail. They have always provided a centralized service so backing your keys to google doesn't make things so much worse, at least until they have to refund everything that could be hacked. |
|
|
|
All these techniques are solutions to problems caused by the small block size, these problems appear more obvious in Bitcoin because of the full & too many bitcoin transactions, but appear less for the rest of the cryptocurrencies "large block size and fewer transactions = low fees."
The problem is that larger block provides just a temporary solution so you will have to extend block size every time after the growth of the amount of transactions. From this side LN seems more reliable. And now we should wait untill at least some of these projects will become somehow popular. |
|
|
|
|
This is not necessary have to be phishing.
I've heard that there are some malware that change the receiver BTC address: so you copy the right address but it pastes the other one. Or you paste the right one but malware changes it right before you are pressing send button.
Now OP just lost money but for future, If you are not using a special OS and your anti-virus remain silent then just double check the receiving address before confirming the transaction.
|
|
|
|
Yeah, it only kicks in if they themselves get hacked, not individual user accounts: Please note that the insurance policy covers any losses resulting from a breach of Coinbase’s physical security, cyber security, or by employee theft. This insurance policy does not cover any losses resulting from the compromise of your individual Coinbase account. It is your responsibility to use a strong password and maintain control of all login credentials you use to access Coinbase.
There seems to be at least one documented case of a Coinbase refund: It was 10.6 bitcoins held in the wallet service Coinbase, the most well-funded and widely implemented service on the market. Jeff, who asked that we not use his last name, got the news of the transaction as soon as it happened, and after going back and forth with a customer-service representative, he had his money refunded. Exactly one month later, it happened again. But yeah "compromise of your account" could be spun into different ways. Insurance is nice, but I still wouldn't rely on it. So coinbase just wanted to say that their centralized service guarantees refund in case of being hacked. There are 2 more similar cases on your link and one of them was denied because a user didn't use 2fa. The amount of positive cases is miserably low while comparing to banks people have more responsibilities related to safety of their accounts. If such things are not such user-friendly as we used to see it then we shouldn't expect fast and mass adoption. |
|
|
|
|
If you are willing to start some kind of blockchain courses then I remember that back in 2017 I've seen some of them on coursera and it feels like now you can find more of such bitcoin studies. And if you want to manage a forum thread then create one somewhere in Technical Discussion board.
|
|
|
|
Cryptocurrencies "Bitcoin" provide you with an irreplaceable alternative As long as you keep your recovery seeds safety, no one will be able to steal your coins without having to trust the promises of someone or an institution.
The problem is that users still have to care about the safety of their computers. Different keylogger viruses are a pretty popular disease of the crypto community. In this case, banks are still way safer because if your card was stolen you can request a chargeback while if someone hacked you and stole your keys there is no way to get your money back. Custodial services are most likely insured because that's kind of the point. Other than that, I know Coinbase actually insures customer funds, albeit conditionally. There could be other exchanges that do this but I don't know of any other example. I feel like I should point out that I don't shill for Coinbase lmao. I just happen to be more familiar with them than other major exchanges. Sounds interesting. Do you know any cases when users could get their money back after being hacked? I feel like funds are secured in case someone hacks coinbase, not a user. That's a bit different kind of security. |
|
|
|
There is already plenty of Bitcoin forks that have faster transactions, lower fees and more of the other useful shit that still can't make those forks valuable.
Market cap of a coin also depends on the maturity of the market and the number of current users.
The same situation is with gold. If no one used it as a store of value it's price could drop very fast.
Are you actually trying to say that the forked versions of Bitcoin are more valuable than Bitcoin itself? Its stupid to even think of something like that. Bitcoin is far superior in terms of every aspect when compared to all the forks and its popularity itself speaks volumes. I have just explained why Bitcoin forks and other "Bitcoin killers" do not really worth anything and you say that I'm stating absolutely opposite point. Just read my comment once again and think about the meaning of the words you are reading. |
|
|
|
|
There is already plenty of Bitcoin forks that have faster transactions, lower fees and more of the other useful shit that still can't make those forks valuable.
Market cap of a coin also depends on the maturity of the market and the number of current users.
The same situation is with gold. If no one used it as a store of value it's price could drop very fast.
|
|
|
|
Every year banks state a big loss due to the existence of cryptocurrencies. Now some adopt it, while more banking sectors try to be against the cryptocurrency.
What kind of losses? Please name just the most significant ones with at least some numbers. Or you just took everything out of your head? Recently some banks have given notice to its customers stating that the entire transaction made relative to cryptocurrencies were on their own risk.
And that's good because there are a lot of scammers that buy BTC on p2p platforms like localbitcoins and after getting cryptocurrency is asking his bank to make a refund. Now to prevent such kind of fraud will not be able to restore the "lost" money. Notice that clients still can send crypto related transactions but they are taking a full responsibilities for it. |
|
|
|
You might try some of the decentralized exchanges, because some of them are still new and they do not require verification yet. <They might be too dificult for newbies>  What exchanges? As I know decentralized exchanges don't work with fiat money. The only way that I know is if OP will switch his BTC into ETH and make an account on localethereum, which is p2p like localbitcoins and at the same time decentralized and don't require KYC. |
|
|
|
So for example loans are extremely important for upward economic mobility, is anyone aware of financial institutions that currently offer loans in bitcoin? Is this something that will only
happen when bitcoin has large usage comparable to fiat in order to be stable enough for an institution to even consider giving a loan?
Why would anyone be giving a huge bitcoin loan? Financial institutions supposed to provide big ones, which if harder than giving small loans via different lending websites. Traditional institution provide low interest rates and getting a small but steady income. They can't legally ask customers to pay them like 100% if interest rates. In such conditions, they may give a 5% BTC loan and during the next year lose 50% on BTC rate. Such risk is not acceptable for big banks and dangerous for the financial system. |
|
|
|
|
But what if crypto related services just can't provide the necessary amount of legal support and different accounting stuff? If at the same time you see that all those startups that got 30mln each from ICO are running out of money without making any product it is pretty obvious that traditional banks won't be so enthusiastic with lending money to such projects.
|
|
|
|
It seems like they were inspired by the success of WeChat in China. If anyone didn't know you can buy literally everything in China via WeChat pay. Even if you buy pack of candies from a street seller.
You can only attach a Chinese bank card to that system and it is very hard to get one if you are not a Chinese resident. So the system was made mostly for Chinese. Also all this system requires a lot of verification steps so WeChat stores almost all your identity so big brother knows almost everything about you: social contacts, spendings etc. And you can switch to more private payment system.
Facebook also got a huge amount of users and can already offer them a payment system. Now with a new payment system they will just get more of your private data. Nothing good for crypto community.
This is something that really contributes to the development of a cryptocurrency, or rather its mass adaptation, we need more such successful cases. The most important issue is the safety issue. It won't be a cryptocurrency and no one even said that it will. That FB money supposed to flow insade a single payment system. But if it will be an open sourced crypto then someone will be able to create his own wallet and use it outside the app for example as a stablecoin for trading. I bet this is not what they want to make. |
|
|
|
An early Bitcoin investor and self-confessed libertarian has built the first “seastead” with his BTC profits. For those who do not know, a seastead is a floating home designed to stay in international waters, thus allowing its inhabitants to live outside of the laws of any nation. Wouldn't a good boat be enough? like a Yacht or something with nice habitation inside? I mean what could possibly warrant a "seastead" or "floating home" when many regular ships can do the same thing and be easier to move and more reliable should weather conditions worsen? OK i guess a floating home could do in a lake or such, but i think this couple is in open sea, which in itself could spell trouble... Seasteading is all about sovereignty. Living on a boat on a lake makes you subject to all of the laws of your nation. Seasteading is about not being under any laws of any nation and building a new society with a blank slate. The only way to do that in the past was through a violent revolution. Seasteading is doing so peacefully. As for waves (and the inevitable "pirate") questions, check out https://ocean.builders/faqWhat kind of laws can you break when you are the only human in your house? You need to have both a victim and an aggressor to commit a crime. Seasteading sounds the same as reclusion. And not because you are not under the jurisdiction of any government but because you physically can't break any law. |
|
|
|
IMHO this will remain only as a payment system, not a cryptocurrency. Even if they issued a stablecoin then it will hardly increase the demand in other cryptos.
It seems like facebook is going to make something like WeChat pay that is used everywhere in China.
So then there is no shocking event on this, it's just a dollar and not a cryptocurrency. I was thinking that it could be another shit coin again, but no, I was completely wrong. And now I can clearly see that it is just a payment system for their apps mostly. Facebook probably wanted it since they may be having a hard time to process the payment using a third parties system. It seems like they were inspired by the success of WeChat in China. If anyone didn't know you can buy literally everything in China via WeChat pay. Even if you buy pack of candies from a street seller. You can only attach a Chinese bank card to that system and it is very hard to get one if you are not a Chinese resident. So the system was made mostly for Chinese. Also all this system requires a lot of verification steps so WeChat stores almost all your identity so big brother knows almost everything about you: social contacts, spendings etc. And you can switch to more private payment system. Facebook also got a huge amount of users and can already offer them a payment system. Now with a new payment system they will just get more of your private data. Nothing good for crypto community. |
|
|
|
But I wouldn't use Bitcoin to pay for anything that fiat can pay with unless it's very necessary, if I were you. Bitcoin is a provably scarce resource, don't waste it. HODL.  Agree with you here on all accounts. Just because you are physically able to pay with BTC doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the wisest idea. Why not? Poeple keep holding bitcoin and trading other cryptos, making a fake impression that these are some pseudo-securities or commodities. Bitcoin IS money and it SHOULD be used to pay the bills and everything. Given the bearish market, it seems reasonable to save some BTC for later, just like sometimes people make fiat savings. But the rest of it should circulate, should be useful in the real life. I would gladly use my Bitcoin to pay the bills, for instance. Unfortunately, each time I have to sell my BTC for fiat and then use it. Bitcoin is the better money, so why not use it in accordance with its main purpose? Unfortunately Bitcoin is not money. At least not yet. It is still an asset and this is how it will remain until the volume that forms the BTC rates will come from those users that are paying bills with it and treating it as a currency and not an asset. Right now people are still trading it as an asset more than they use it as a currency. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
