Considering cryptocurrency ban and pushing their own cryptocurrency for the public's consumption? That seems a very legitimate move to me. Instead of focusing on enriching their economy--and allowing cryptocurrency and related services includes them--they instead built a giant statue worth 29 billion Rupees which symbolizes "India's integrity and resolve". What has that to do with the evident poverty within the country? India, instead of progressing, is regressing towards the Stone Age. Well what do we know about their internal policies and such, anyways.  |
|
|
|
|
So do we, Jamie. We also don't give a shit about your opinion. This is not 2014-2015 wherein a single statement from a relatively known persona in the financial space could move the markets hard. Also, the banker doesn't know that without bitcoin, the idea of the blockchain wouldn't even spring to mind. If he doesn't really care about bitcoin, or care about anything relating to it, why admit that blockchain is technology? He is one of the finest hypocrites living in this planet today.
|
|
|
|
I was also curious about this topic, as a lot of economists have been saying that we are long overdue for a economic crisis in the United States. So, based on my brief research a few days ago, there are 2 opinions I frequently read: - Some say thay money will flow into cryptocurrencies. Why? Because people will be putting their money on a scarce asset, and also on something that can be easily bought and easily accessible(probably via Coinbase or something).
- Some say thay money will NOT flow into cryptocurrencies. Why? Because people wouldn't want to move their money on something riskier and more volatile. Also knowing that people had a bad impression of bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in general when it crashed on January 2018.
I personally am leaning more on the first one, but I'm still having second thoughts. I'm not an economic expect to start with. Which is the right one? I really don't know. It's up to you to decide.  Always two sides, eh? But yeah, I'm also inclined to believe that people will throw their money on bitcoin and other crypto should an economic crash occur. While there are doubts on bitcoin's ability to hold value, still the performance of bitcoin for the past 9 or so years testify that it is indeed capable of being a trusty asset that also has its own cycles, just like your conventional asset within the traditional financial markets. Still though, there aren't any guarantees that it will be just like what we projected in here knowing that there are still other assets to move their funds to in the midst of a crisis (precious metals, lol). |
|
|
|
|
The Philippines has quite a neutral stance on cryptocurrencies. It hasn't issued any formal regulations regarding taxation but it sure has issued a circular regarding cryptocurrencies as investments and/or assets that can be used as a vehicle for fraud etc. Before signing up in an exchange here, you must fill up a KYC form that states your source of funds for your account--which is quite a bummer IMO--in order to have your account verified. Perhaps the Philippines is already conditioning the users about their plans to tax crypto gains since they are slowly making a move starting from regulations and stricter KYC.
|
|
|
|
|
The first thing I noticed on the whitepaper is how well-made it was and how in-depth every explanation was when it comes to economics and the current state of our financial system. Frankly speaking, I never understood any of the references Satoshi made regarding cryptography, but the idea was there. It helped me understand what bitcoin really is and what its purpose is to our current world. It gives basic understanding, but if you want in-depth knowledge regarding bitcoin, theymos is right, Satoshi's forum posts are a far more better reading compared to the whitepaper.
|
|
|
|
Would this make banks responsible for uncontrollable losses? This will be great for adoption and hints at a future where banks essentially regulate smooth digital transactions and keep them secure.
If they ever go this route, I imagine they'd offer a deposit insurance. Either way, if they offer this as a service, they should be liable for any losses. There's really no point otherwise. Aren't banks suppose to cover the losses of their users and peers should a hack or loss within their vaults occur? Anyway though, it seems that more and more institutions are getting their hands on blockchain and crypto tech. Most banks relied on obscure security practices back then, and I think it's about time that they do something innovative on the way they handle other people's money. That's it, the future of cryptos will be about patents, development, and commercial wars, and only the big ones will win. It's up to people to wake up if they really want cryptos to be free from banks (and even to be able to use for some countries...)
In part, yes. Most giant companies and institutions will just incorporate a part of a cryptocurrency and get a patent about it, make some innovations and voila! |
|
|
|
There are various reasons and risks from Cryptocurrency including:
1. As in the form of digital assets, it is easily misused for financial system crimes such as money laundering.
2. The absence of a clear system, makes cryptocurrency vulnerable to malfunctions that ultimately harm users.
Isn't it ironic that fiat currency has a clear system with easily understandable laws and regulations yet it still is a vehicle for money laundering and fraud? You can't simply bat an eye on bitcoin by ignoring the facts that is also present in fiat. 3. Crypto assets have the potential for financial crime (fraud), security violations and operating failures.
So does fiat ucrrency, but we aren't pinning it down so hard are we? For this reason Cryptocurrency cannot be legally accepted and even banned in some countries. All definitely have strong and wise reasons such for the safety and comfort of the user in the country. Therefore, I think it is time for stakeholders in various countries, especially in countries whereas crypto-capitalexchanges trading ecosystems is high, must think about creating and compiling clear regulations related to cryptocurrency to prevent future potential problems. Because we know Cryptocurrency has become an unavoidable necessity and Crypto is not for us to avoid but must be seen as a potential for benefit and global progress.
Besides of the regulation of Cryptocurrency itself, the main problem is to prevent and avoid irresponsible individuals who have the potential to do other bitcoin or crypto washing, or theft of Cryptocurrency.
I question my self that do we can be free or stay away from fraud?
Even though bitcoin has these sort of weakness and vulnerability (well fiat currency also has these), it certainly proved its place in the financial world since people and companies still trusted it by investing and buying it. Money can never be freed from fraud as this ignites the greed from people. Even with a clearly devised system, fraud will never be eliminated. |
|
|
|
|
One thing is that the volume is somewhat transferred to another asset/coin that's why there haven't been any movements for bitcoin recently. A slow trading scenario doesn't necessarily mean that volatility is lost (for cryptocurrencies, of course). Do note that there are also other assets in which traders might be invested to and are tending those first since they are more profitable than bitcoin at the present moment. Even I would move my funds into other assets first if I see that they are ripe for the picking and the opportunity is present compared to keeping up with bitcoin while everyone is away.
|
|
|
|
|
1 private key in 10,000,000 addresses? You'll have to include a lot of addresses before you can stumble into a collision. With all the 2^160 possible address combination, it is quite improbable that you'll see a private key in the first 10M addresses. Not to mention that you will have to exhaust a lot of computing power and energy before you come close to your projected analysis/results. Asking for help here in this forum is a dire effort as almost all members understands that it's just not possible to extract a private key out of the computing power and method we have right now.
|
|
|
|
I don't see how VR or AR can transform the economy. Sure it can give it a boost by with industry profits, but it doesn't mean it's going to "transform" it. Not the same as if VR/AR would be a direct factor of the economy. AI will on the other side have its side of job.
Well VR and AR has a lot of implementations and its just not limited to gaming and entertainment. For one, med students, alongside research and other science stuff could employ the help of these tools for better understanding of models, which, IMO is also a viable niche market. Though it's true that it can't really transform the economy that much but then it'll still add some figures in the end. As for AI, well, there'll be tons of application for the said tech, ranging from entertainment to logistics, programming, data admin etc., you name it. AI will be a massive transformation if we ever perfect the said technology, but then again it's still a grey area and a lot of people are concerned about its negative implications because of watching too much sci-fi movies. |
|
|
|
|
The cycles might appear to be very similar but they're actually not. As always, the adage "history repeats itself" doesn't ring true in volatile markets such as bitcoin. You see, if it ever repeats itself, we would have expected or have predicted rightfully when will the next bull run be, but right now we're only coming up with biased guesses and 'guesstimates' as to when will the hysteria and FOMO begin again. As more and more people are participating in this open market, the harder it is for the whales to actually control it and make their moves similar to what happened a few years back.
|
|
|
|
|
A clear mind always helps in trading, but a literally clear mind won't get you far, either.
While on my free time, I always make sure that I'll read a few books regarding a subject that I'm greatly hooked up at a certain time. If you are into trading, I suggest you read about the subject in detail for you to have some sort of reference in trades that you wish to complete. Sure, being calm and disconnected from your emotions when trading greatly helps, but what good can it do when you don't even have the knowledge to trade or complete the deals you see that are opportune?
|
|
|
|
|
A hypothetical and rhetorical question. If the last of the 21 million bitcoin is mined by 2140, it's either the price of 1 bitcoin is too high for the miners to continue hashing or it the network wouldn't live to exhaust the supply due to petty geopolitical and economical issues (hi Trump, China and Russia!) We're going to incline on the safer side just to satisfy your question. If bitcoin lived up until 2140, it could be that it's due to the constant pouring of demand + price increases to motivate the miners to keep hashing. By then, bitcoin is regarded as the new gold and is an integral part of the world's economy. If not, then bitcoin might not even see the last coin to be mined since there's literally no incentive for the miners to do so + the cost of mining will surely outweigh their profit.
|
|
|
|
I don't think bitcoin is bitcoin if it only acts as a store of value. True that it can hold value over time but to make it exclusive as such is only for those who think that bitcoin cannot function as a medium of exchange as well. That's why it's wrong to say that bitcoin is "advertised as a store of value" since no one really is saying that it is exclusive to such function as it will lose the essence of a peer-to-peer digital currency that was its original intended use-case. -snip-
for instance its not just about rarity.
i have a dog, it will only do 4000 bowel movements (bags of dog poo) in its life.
may the bidding begin? nope. because rarity/scarcity is not enough
function. features, adoption, desire are needed.
by me just saying a bag of dog poo is $20, doesnt make it $20 and doesnt make it the bottomline
Exactly. Rarity doesn't dictate the price of an object. It needs to have a certain niche before it sells. A stone could be as rare as a diamond but if it's just a normal stone with some normal properties just like other rocks, it will not sell and rich people will not try to hoard their assets on the said stone just because it's rare. |
|
|
|
|
Trading is partly gambling IMO as you're betting with the choices you made without any assurance that you'll profit in the end. Also, knowing that the markets are places of extreme dynamism, you must always be ready to face losses and move on with a better plan. I learned this in the hard way when I lost a significant amount of trading money in a coin that's performing pretty well for a month only to have its numbers brought down without any form of warning or hint that it will crash.
Oh and as always, never try to invest what you can't afford to lose.
|
|
|
|
|
Time-consuming and very resource intensive, I should say. The mods are already handling tons of reports and requests every day with the same nature of approach. Also, some mods are doing work voluntarily and not really paid that much (CMMIIW) by this forum. Hiring more mods doesn't necessarily solve the issue of spam, and this might seen as somewhat controlling the freedom of newbies and lower-rank members to post whatever they like (lol). If you happen to see such posts that does not go well with the topic or is somewhat inappropriate to the board in which it was posted, the report to moderator button works wonders.
|
|
|
|
We haven't really strayed too far from what Satoshi envisioned in his whitepaper. For all we know, majority of transactions happening within the whole network is in between two parties; the essence of trust-less payments still lives and decentralization is still very evident from what we can observe. Also, third-party payment processors are only options in case the merchant wants to convert to cash immediately, and there are no rules enforcing people to use concierges whatsoever in general transactions. Fear not, we haven't disappointed Satoshi--at least not yet.  |
|
|
|
|
It has been like that since the start of 2017. Bitcoin's price isn't easily affected by news anymore. Notice that even with the wave of rejected ETF news, the price didn't bother to move from where it was. Also, there are cases in which the price reached $8000 and $7000 out of nowhere, without any news that could trigger a massive push of that magnitude. This, I think is just normal considering that the bitcoin market is slowly getting matured and slowly gaining attention from even the institutional investors. The traders in the said market is diluted and their views are not easily changed by news and I think that's lovely.
|
|
|
|
|
ICOs and bitcoin aren't really two complementary things. Bitcoin started out as an obscure coin for most people on the internet with only a few enthusiasts really grinding down the gears. It is then that it had picked up value after a year or so of trading and transacting and ICOs weren't even available back then. Also just like the halving of block reward, bitcoin's 10th birthday doesn't seem to influence nor motivate traders into buying more and more of the said coin, so yeah, it's not that exciting but certainly not a sign of a dying coin.
|
|
|
|
If the news is reliable then it is very good. But honestly speaking, everything looks very suspicious, since a month ago I read news that Visa and Mastercard payment systems do not support the cryptocurrency market and do not intend to develop in this area.
They are not trying to develop cryptocurrencies per se but rather just the blockchain technology. It's quite common nowadays for financial institutions to tap on the power of blockchain, seeing that its use cases on their services would greatly speed up transactions and possibly improve security on their end. They're not the ones who wanted to employ such technology on their services as there are countless others waiting in queue for R&D about blockchain to put up significant results for their intended use cases. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
