Again, you are already free to trade Bitcoin in most countries. Nobody is stopping you. Bitcoin is already legal for payments and has been since it was invented in almost all countries.
People who are asking for legal tender status are asking for the government to use their power to force people to accept Bitcoin.
It is also perfectly legal to use barter to pay for things in most countries.
bitcoin is not "legal" everywhere as that involves legislation bitcoin was everywhere deemed not "illegal" due to no legislation(pre2013~) there is a difference. and worth learning the correct term is bitcoin is not illegal in countries where its not recognised, banned, licenced .. (basically places where theres no legislation) EG "It is also not illegal to use barter to pay for things in most countries." would be the more accurate wording by wanting legal status officially = creating legislation.. something that comes with negative commitments/conditions i prefered bitcoin in the days when it was not illegal. far more then the days where its now legal there was a pivotal point around 2013-2014 in US-EU and most large countries where bitcoin changed from being not illegal to being legal, even if not attaining the higher status of tender recognition think of it as four statuses not illegal = no laws, no regulations, no legislation exist for it(do as you please with it, theres nothing stopping you(lawless)) illegal = laws, regulations, legislation wrote to say its not allowed legal = laws, regulations, legislation wrote to say its allowed legal tender laws, regulations, legislation wrote to say its allowed, and also extra regulatory oversight to be treated as good as money within condition ... something being legal. is allowed because the law says so something being not illegal vs being legal are two separate things hope that clarifies things |
|
|
|
legal tender is not about replacing countries FAIT. its about allowing businesses to sell goods/services and pay taxes and such in bitcoin..
[...]
Again, like many here, you are confusing the terms, "legal" and "legal tender". Bitcoin is legal in most countries. Anybody can trade in Bitcoin if they want to. Bitcoin is not truly legal tender in any country, including El Salvador, since even there they don't universally enforce their law. Legal tender means payees must accept Bitcoin as a means of settling a debt whether they want to or not. It's also worth noting here how incredibly rare it is for this to even be an issue. The US dollar's legal tender status only comes up in court judgements where there is disagreement about a settlement of a debt denoted in some other form of payment (e.g. a barter), in which case the court can make a judgement that an equivalent US dollar amount be paid, and the payor is forced to pay in that currency. That's it. That's all "legal tender" actually does. .. you are not understanding the bigger out-of-box thinking looking into the whole thing saying something is legal is saying government say its in legislation to allow.. saying something is not illegal is saying government have not said in legislation its not allowed.. see the difference? lets explain pre 1900, alcohol was not "illegal" as it had no rules. thus not illegal... nor legal.. it was just out of scope of legislation due to having no legislation thus no scope for government to do anything (no jurisdiction) thus no crimes can be claimed for using it then the 1920's prohibition ban where legislation was written it make it illegal.. then the licencing permit of alcohol, with rules attached, where legislation was written. which made it legal to sell to [insert minimum wage] legal to consume [insert location conditions] blah blah blah bitcoin is the same. by having no rules it was not ILLEGAL.. because pre to 2013 there were no rules however countries did then recognise it and start forming rules thus started making legislation whats legal and illegal is based on legislation rules. if there are no rules its not "legal", nor not "not legal" its just not "illegal" either.. in short has no scope in legality.. next "legal TENDER" unlike other things that are LEGAL in legislation. 99.999% of those things are not treated as convertible currency and common accepted moneys governments that declare something as legal tender then allow businesses to treat it as good as money.. but this does not mean replacing current fiat. it just means extra regulations apply to the rules of legislation when getting legal tender status.. such as banking rules and taxes |
|
|
|
It's pretty simple. Government should try to nudge mining companies to choose renewables over fossil fuels.
And this is exactly what EIA is going to do, they are going to get the data and from now it's the government going to penalize miners that consume fossil generated energy and make them use renewables. Nobody will give a damn if 100000Exahas are powered by the miners own renewables, but if you're increasing community electricity prices because a miner gulps out all the electricity from a dam, that's not going to fly Not only is the quantity of energy used in proof-of-work mining troubling, but so is the energy source. Fossil fuel consumption by miners has the potential to exacerbate environmental issues such as global warming. That's far less of an issue, though, if miners are employing renewable energy sources. However, this does not mean that miners' operations aren't negatively affecting the surrounding community, even if they are employing renewable energy. When considering the environmental impacts of proof-of-work mining, that is something that should definitely be taken into account. so much to unpick and correct in all statements quoted above a. stompix using 100000exa number.... yet reality is only <600exa for full WORLD network, let alone just the american mining which is far less b. stompix "because a miner gulps out all" a miner only uses <4KWh i feel stompix's real fear is his out-of-date single asic he rented through a remote host will be seized by gov before he makes ROI Gormicsta: most significant asic farms (unlike stompixes favourite legally iffy and fossil powered hosts) already positioned themselves in regions where renewable power plants want mining business. and contracted electrical sales for 1-2year contract allotments of energy, fully knowing of the generation vs consumption demand/supply what actually happens in a region is.. decades before a region can even build real estate, it needs power capacity. and so if a new renewable power plant is placed in the region. its done with considerations of FUTURE demand(forward planning supply needs, 50 years ahead of demand). thus has alot of excess supply potential in first few decades before real estate can develop to take that supply. so power plants LOVE quick established demand as its early income before the long wait of real estate development to take on the new supply |
|
|
|
In addition, those addresses where he claims that "his coins" are located are obviously not in his possession
They probably weren't Satoshi's coins. Craig just likely went through the bitcoin "rich list" and chose a load of long-dormant addresses assuming they were either lost or inaccessible, but obviously he was proved wrong. Even worse for him he claimed they were double or triple-encrypted in a bonded courier so it would have been nigh on impossible for anyone to have signed a message from them including him, and that's what he was banking on but obviously shot himself in the foot there. Hopefully they bring this up in the trial. CSW doesnt own those and yes did infact grab a random "richlist" of publicly available data the funniest part is the real satoshi knew about things like extranonce and lets say the real satoshi forgot his wallet/lost his wallet.. the real satoshi knew enough that he could have even used Sergios Lerner "patoshi pattern" to grab a list of addresses that would be more accurately possible to be satoshis CSW is so dumb he didnt even pick the right addresses to seem credible to pretend to own.. because he didnt even do basic research into bitcoin or stuff that the real satoshi would know. even before the "need a signature proof" drama of those lists.. just checking some of the addresses were not part of the "patoshi pattern" was proof enough that its not a satoshi list csw had. in short CSW's address selection, by not being based on addresses even sergio lerner could establish, is proof enough CSW aint satoshi because CSW doesnt even know basics of bitcoin to have found a plausible list of addresses.. but yea the real owners of CSW's random selection signing to say they are not CSW is extra proof CSW is a conniving lying idiot |
|
|
|
I think a lot of people misunderstand what "legal tender" means.
Legal tender means that the government forces everybody to accept Bitcoin whether they want to or not.
Typically a country only has one currency like that, which is their sovereign national currency.
In other words, when you are asking for legal tender status, you are asking for a free, open and decentralized thing like Bitcoin should become controlled by the government because they force everybody to own it. Not only is this immoral, it will absolutely backfire because anything you force everybody to own will always end up being controlled by the government.
Understand that "legal tender" does not mean "legal". Bitcoin is already perfectly legal in most countries: you can own it and you can trade it if you want to. Even in China, where people consider Bitcoin "banned", individuals there can own it and the laws only apply to financial entities there (which are already highly regulated in all kinds of ways and there is probably a long, long list of things they cannot own).
So please stop asking for government help in proliferating Bitcoin by forcing people to accept something they don't want to accept.
And concede that Bitcoin is already legal for the most part, and governments at this point are not meaningfully "holding it back".
legal tender is not about replacing countries FAIT. its about allowing businesses to sell goods/services and pay taxes and such in bitcoin.. the negative side is as you later say, it then allows those countries governments to apply licencing/permitted use rules on the use of it and start requiring regulations on the services that use it. but legal tender is not about replacing fiat the way governments achieve "legal tender" acceptance is usually a covert or overt ban. either just overnight or longterm. and then a permit/licencing acceptance of use under certain conditions acceptable to government (even the NYbitlicence done a covert ban, with overnight acceptance under conditions for NY citizens and businesses) in short your first three sentences are inaccurate but the rest of post is a correctly a concern we should think about. |
|
|
|
|
bitcoin has its own economic time table of deflation which is based on a market cycle of 4 years..
FIAT time tables of inflation are based on 3-6-12 months between each government budget report
bitcoin does not peg or shadow a fiat. so they dont resemble each other economic policy or fud reports
|
|
|
|
Yeah people always freak out about the hashrate dropping during halving but it's usually just a short-term blip. Miners are savvy and they upgrade or sell gear beforehand because they know it's not worth mining at a loss. The network tends to bounce back and keep growing after the initial dip
to explain above in more detail most of the hashrate are mining farms which buy hardware for a 2 year lifecycle and buy electric contracts calculated to serve enough power to those asics for 2 years. so no matter the market or hashrate of competition they just continually mine no matter what there are however small minority of hobby miners with only a few asics each that watch the market and calculate there small sat reward shares vs market rate on a daily/weekly rate and pool hop between bitcoin and altcoins. this is all normal when the halving happens the asic farms are already prepared, they continue through the halving and are then accounting their accumulations vs next seasons costs in the ATH year round of the cycle the ATH high doesnt just set a new ATH but also the correction after sets a new RAISED bottom compared to previous seasons lower bottom thus self symbiotically keeps the asics active and cost efficient |
|
|
|
The argument makes no sense to me. Normally, job cuts go hand in hand with the closing of smaller locations. At least that has mostly been the case in the past. Opening smaller locations abroad or in new markets is more cost-intensive than opening/operating a few large locations.
lets use rockstar(GTA) as an example when using american talent to design the new engines that will run GTA6, after the engines are complete they then put that team to other games or lay them off, replacing them with another team that do storyboards and missions. then they hire in temps/offshore freelancers as testers, bug fixers and support staff it is not cost intensive to set up remote locations abroad. they just contract existing remote agency staff at rates far cheaper then paying a US developers paying high talent dev salary to do support/testing is a waste of time and money for all businesses |
|
|
|
|
your body can only process one pint (~half litre) of fluid every few hours at best. usually every 3+ hours
if you usually urinate a pint per 3 hours dont put excess fluids above that into your system
its the excess fluids that can cause things like hypertension.. pushing too much fluid is literally the definition of high blood pressure
dont drink alcohol or any fluid excessively. one cup an hour is max. one cup per 3 hours is normal
if you think drinking 2 large glasses in a evening social event that lasts only 1-3hours is moderate. then you already failed
|
|
|
|
|
current generation tokens are not truly NFT to their fullest. its why after the first round of creators scamming the market with the pretend sells(to themselves) to fake value/set market rate, after the second round of idiot victims buying them. they die out where by 70-99% of tokens then dont get sold. they repeat via a slightly altered design but still not effective. and slowly get dwindling returns
but thats just the crap tokens pretending to be NFT(current gen stuff)
thats said web3 and real NFT have yet to actually prosper. real utility outside of the sales of gimmicks has yet to be generated
..
unlike the current web3 metaverse which is jsut a glorified VR cartoon chatroom arena. things will develop..
where server hosts will rent/lease(via crypto) VR land plots where businesses can build 3d rendered VR retail stores that avatars can walk through and see products. these VR retailers can then sell shelf space to their product suppliers that then drop ship real life goods to peoples homes
unlike the current web2 2d webstores that display flat images of goods and have adverts on flat screen pages
..
as for NFT
you will see things like air drops in realworld using AR viewing or when using vR in these online 3d shopping malls. where tokens actually do more then just pretend to own an image hash.. but actually be something of value
EG imagine collecting 5 starbucks stars. which can convert to get you a free coffee. or collect 100 for a stockmarket share in starbucks
thus creating a secondary market of people collecting stars. trading starbucks for KFC freebies. and stuff
whereby having a starbucks token on your address signifies you as potential/loyal customer based on your holdings which then generates to more token rewards or has competitors air dropping you their tokens to win your custom to their offerings
where the more you collect increases your consumer value to businesses to earn more
other things like tokenising music concert tickets. whereby having a token shows you are a fan so you get discounts on merch or the next concert. or exclusive access to early release albums. or lifetime access to songs on things like spotify/itunes.
(the lsit of opportunities go on)
|
|
|
|
I am an economic journalist by profession. I will be happy to interview him with 1000 questions and dig out the truth.
he is not very smart, he is just conniving enough to know how to scam people and use the scams as drama to scam others in a snowball effect if you were to interview him you will just get 1000 bull crap answers that play into his drama.. wasting your time unless you have a hammer in one hand and his fingers viced in another hand you wont get any good answers out of him so dont waste your time our anyone elses. |
|
|
|
It's incredibly easy to run most older versions, provided you don't go too far back. It's also easy to run wallet software not published by Core at all.
But, keep in mind that "supporting" changes you'd like to support is one thing, but "blocking" changes that others support is not always possible. And this has been the case from day one. so doomad is finally admitting it.. oh wait he then backtracks to save himself but what you have to understand is consensus WAS about majority acceptance(consent) (consent of the masses=consensus) to activate new feature with/when majority readinessbut what you have to understand is consensus WAS about majority rejection, stay in status quo(no change) when there was no majority readinessSome people think that individuals should have some sort of veto that allows them to prevent others from doing what they want to do. Such people will always end up disappointed in an open-source environment where anyone can code what they want.
this is where doomad says misinformation stuff.. lets correct it.. individuals(centralised) should not have veto power over the masses(decentralised). instead masses(decentralised) should have veto power over the individual(centralised) anyone can code, but a individual "anyone"(centralised) should not have controlling power to override the majority masses(decentralised) however doomad prefers centralised CORE should have absolute centralised, un-scrutinised, unrestricted, unblockable power over the network
the current system of "backward compatibility" is that the network has now weaker security as it does not need majority readiness to accept new features to understand/validate each bytes need to exist on the networks blockchain.. thus core can now trojan in new things unnoticed, unchecked without network majority readinessif nodes cant decide if a bad feature core wants doesnt activate, by not agreeing(via upgrading) because they see the flaw and dont want the flaw happening. then bad things can and have happened doomad(and his forum family ilks like blackhatcoiner) does not believe in consent of the masses(decentralisation/the use of the solution of the byzantine generals issue) nor network security. he believes in "let core do what they want good or bad".. because he believes only core should determine, run, control, manage the network protocol.. good or bad.. and no one should decentrally scrutinise them when people start thinking only core should make the decisions, offer proposals for on network changes and core should do what they like.. its called a central point of failure risk oh and doomad and his ilk/clan doesnt believe in "one cpu one vote"(where many cpu exist on the network).. he prefers "one core, no vote" nothing in doomad/blackhatcoiners preferences sound anywhere close to decentralisation so its idiots like them and their fanclub clan of treating core as gods that should not be scrutinised.. that cry to the core gods (that are also moderators) to ban people that dare scrutinise core doomad(and his half a dozen clan that idolise centralisation) still does not want to learn why bitcoin was invented to not be like the centralised governing banking system.. all because the annoyances caused by centralisation of bitcoin, benefits the subnetwork he prefers to make people move over to and abandon using bitcoin in the process (because he wants the annoyances/issues to continue) |
|
|
|
India is the new leader of the global south .... And a replacement for China ? China has recently started to openly surrender its position. both politically and economically. politics is not the place to discuss, but the economy leaves much to be desired. Although it is partly a consequence of politics  ) india is global south.. china is global north india's global south competition is africa and south american countries china's global north competition is russia, europe, north america (economic north-south is more of the tropic of cancer, not the equator) |
|
|
|
I agree. I can see that there is absolutely no reason for this entire Satoshi thing other than feeding his ego. It's not like he can ever access those coins in the real Satoshi's wallet. At most, his end goal is to become more famous
His intention could be to promote his crap coin and reduce the authenticity of bitcoin, which would also do the help of promoting his crap coin. his intention is simple.. win or lose he can sell his life story to media about either a hero story or villain story. to him its good drama either way worthy of a box office movie... well thats what he promised his investors like ayres |
|
|
|
|
the bull run starts itself from the year to halving and ends at the ATH
its the market cycle
as for temporary events.. such as speculative FOMO and FUD
the elon drama was in early 2021 not 2020.. and initiated by media announcing the SEC filing. rather than elon first
drama of the start of 2020 was covid
|
|
|
|
How much worth of bitcoin you are holding?  BTC & what is your future plan on next bullrun?a. enough b. ride the waves.. sell high(near ATH 2025), buy low.(near 2026 correction) |
|
|
|
Maybe one thing that I might add is that if the transaction fees are currently coming back down and eating through the 20 sats per vbyte backlog, then we might be able to conclude that whatever was being done in the last 3 months or so in order to keep the fees high might not be sustainable (and maybe costing the attackers too much), and it may well be better to not change anything in any kind of substantial ways rather than to be forced (or rushed) into some kind of a change that is largely being artificially justified by the three month backlog in order to cause people to speculate that something in bitcoin is broken or some urgent change is needed (when it is not)... and so yeah, there might not be as much urgency as some complainers (cough, cough franky1) are trying to spout out about.
observing mempool you will see the fees didnt come down to allow blocks to eat through the 20sat/vb backlog instead the 20sat/vb got purged. then some 16sat/vb added and got purged , then some 20sat/vb added and got purged because the min went upto 21 before new fresh tx added to mempool from 16sat/vb up.. and then purged again back to 20 - fastestFee: 26 sat/vB
- halfHourFee: 25 sat/vB
- hourFee: 25 sat/vB
- economyFee: 25 sat/vB
- minimumFee: 16 sat/vB
- fastestFee: 26 sat/vB
- halfHourFee: 25 sat/vB
- hourFee: 25 sat/vB
- economyFee: 25 sat/vB
- minimumFee: 20 sat/vB
- fastestFee: 24 sat/vB
- halfHourFee: 24 sat/vB
- hourFee: 24 sat/vB
- economyFee: 24 sat/vB
- minimumFee: 16 sat/vB
- fastestFee: 28 sat/vB
- halfHourFee: 26 sat/vB
- hourFee: 25 sat/vB
- economyFee: 25 sat/vB
- minimumFee: 21 sat/vB
you can see that jochen-hoenicke retains tx below 20sat/vb because HIS mempool is set at 550MB instead of standard 300 but by seeing the straight line(unnatural) of the 20-21 colours they are purged by majority which means only jochen-hoenicke is retaining them hence the straight line. where most natural transactions of 300mb mempools are purging cheap fees (if very cheap tx were being added you would see wiggly lines of tx's coming and going as they get relayed in - confirmed out) if you zoom right in on the jochen graph you might see the very rare one pixel change meaning maybe a little amount of cheap tx got into some lucky block. but the overall straight line shows there is no real coming of going of tx of that fee point because they get purged.. not eaten by block the "min" is more of a purge line. |
|
|
|
jeff garzik bought the domain and sirius(theymos) was one of the admins who then took over as head admin garzik passed domain over through c0bra, then theymos after some time The story of how I became head admin is actually pretty boring. Moderators were needed, so I was made a global moderator. Then admins were needed, so I was made an admin. Then over time the other admins slowly lost interest and resigned until I was the only one left. I guess most of the people who were around here to see this have more-or-less left the community now. That's a bit sad.
It's not entirely clear, but for simplicity I usually say that I became head admin at the beginning of 2011, a little over a year after the forum was created.
The forum was originally located at bitcoin.org/smf, then forum.bitcoin.org (hence the redirect), and finally bitcointalk.org. Fun fact: The name "bitcointalk" was invented by Jeff Garzik, and he's the one who bought the domain.
|
|
|
|
i said the YOUR citation in this topic(the wikipedia link and quote) has nothing to do with sybil or bitcoin (this topic) as for the swan website. it just reads as the same BS tricks you do of name spamming in swans case its cantillion.. in your case its nash both of you miss the point of actually understanding the underlying economics of things you both quote swans case is he could simply say fiat is inflation. bitcoin is deflation and not need to name spam X-effect or reverse-X-effect much like you misunderstand many bitcoin economic stuff but just want to throw in some Nashisms |
|
|
|
My understanding (please correct me if I am wrong) is that node operators have the ability to choose the version or Core they run. This allows nodes to decide which changes they wanted to support.
not anymore core made things more "backward compatible" so that it doesnt require user nodes to be network reedy with uptodate ruleset and format knowledge before a network change takes effect. thus users nodes do not even have any consensus effect on if a feature activates or not its now just down to service nodes(economic nodes) of things like exchanges/popular institutional services which want to use these features for mass customers they custodian/accept payment for.. economic nodes which can mandate mining pool nodes to comply or else have blocks rejected. as seen happening in the past.. its a game of follow the leader now if you want your transaction, blockreward seen by x,y,z services.. stay in compliance with the services choice of upgrade If nodes took on this responsibility than developers wouldn't be a centralizing factor and there would be less motivation to manipulate them with money. With a diversified group running the nodes than code manipulation would be less of an issue.
when the choice of protocol direction via node proposal selection is core vs.. core vs.. core.. is there really a choice REKT campaigns have been done if any other brand attempted to propose upgrades, they were relegated to being treated as altcoin options should their proposals activate against the core roadmap Could the Core team make it easier to change the version of Core that a node operator is running? This would help solve the problem.
they already made it easier with "backward compatibility" where user nodes dont even need to upgrade when new core features upgrade.. the users nodes just blind passes the new style data as valid without actually checking. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
