Sad world you live in ,that an energy wasting parasite called bitcoin is your deity.
Thinking it is going to solve your problems, is a delusion with harsh consequences.
The problem you have is with money. All reliable forms of money require significant energy expenditure. How about the mining and minting costs of gold, or the energy running the entire banking system from physical ATMs and bank branches to SWIFT infrastructure? At least industrial miners have economic incentives to seek out load balancing arrangements with power generators, where Bitcoin saves energy from being wasted. POS is a nice ideal, but don't be surprised when people demand a more theoretically and practically secure method to secure their wealth. |
|
|
|
It isn't a failure but there needs to be some advancement to make flexibility with the fee on some services or on any business. When we're buying a coffee worth $1 and $2 worth transaction fee then it is a failure. That's the point about "misaligned expectations." Whether it's economical to buy coffee with was never the proper metric to gauge its success. The only reason on-chain transactions were viable years ago for micropayments was because adoption was so nascent; not many people were using Bitcoin yet. Now that adoption has grown so significantly, demand for block space is understandably much higher. Ideally in the future, there will be many different protocols or applications with varying security models -- some offchain, some with varying degrees of trust or centralization -- and the cost to use these platforms will reflect their security model. With a fully centralized model like Flexa, customers pay zero fees for POS transactions. They just need to pay for one on-chain transaction fee to fund their Flexa/Spedn wallet. Would you want to keep all your bitcoins in Spedn? Of course not. But you could load it with a couple hundred bucks worth of bitcoins like a prepaid card or a checking account and the risk isn't a big deal. Lightning is obviously a superior model, though it'll be a while before its usability is adequate for mainstream consumers. |
|
|
|
|
Pay out a percentage of staking rewards to depositors of POS coins. This would allow customers to "hold" the coins and reap staking rewards while simultaneously setting limit orders in case of a price increase.
I'm not aware of any exchange that does this -- and maybe there's good reason for that. I haven't thought through all the logistics.
|
|
|
|
Communication and relationship between client and Exchange is regulated by User agreement, which every user accepts at registration. There is no way to register without accepting the user agreement. However, rarely, some clients ignore and flagrantly breach the User agreement.
The client is clearly provoking a conflict, ignoring all suggested options of settlement. Earlier this client said that all information, violating the user agreement had been removed, but the investigation found out that, on the contrary, there is much more such information now. All further discussions of this issue will be held solely with the client and only after eliminating all negative effects.
FYI, it's customary to pay the customer his money before expecting negative public complaints to be removed. He's using this as leverage to get what is rightfully his. I see nothing wrong with that. Do you seriously think you can hide behind your terms as a pretense to rob your customers in open sight? Merely stating that you will steal customer funds for breach of terms -- terms which you can and have changed suddenly and without notice -- is not legal justification to do so. The actual damages arising from that alleged breach are not equal to whatever you decide to steal from your customers. I don't know who your legal counsel is, but your actions would not be legally justifiable in any respectable court of law. I recommend you tread carefully here. |
|
|
|
hmm, lending rates are directly linked to demand from margin trading. I don't want another sh*tcoin collapse...
Besides, I've removed most of my coins. I only have about 0.1 BTC left at Poloniex. I just don't trust it anymore, and who can?
Has this scandal had a material effect on P2P lending liquidity, or are lenders generally just eating the loss and continuing on as normal? Where can we view statistics about outstanding P2P loans and interest rates? I'd have thought lenders would withdraw funds en masse and this would naturally drive interest rates up. |
|
|
|
I'm not going to cheer yet because the demand for these instruments might not be there at all. It's great that the CFTC approved two proposals in a row, but what's it all worth when the volumes just aren't there? ErisX, LedgerX, Bakkt, Fidelity -- these companies are all trying to bring platforms online before the next bubble takes off. They won't create volume just by virtue of their existence, but the infrastructure being there when market hype really picks up could be a big deal. Most of the institutions interested in Bitcoin trade at CME already, so it's going to be a difficult task to beat that. The main question is whether there is (or will be) institutions who want to accumulate real bitcoins, as opposed to paper contracts. Physical delivery -- assuming significant bitcoin liquidity enters the futures markets -- could become a way for institutions to accumulate real bitcoin positions without ever touching unregulated OTC markets or spot exchanges. |
|
|
|
All aspiring brokerages and money transmitter businesses, trusts, you name it you should all, seriously, all of you, seriously seriously just focus on moving entirely offshore and only accepting crypto deposits. There is no winning with the US and EU let alone India. I think the two-tiered system we're seeing will become more entrenched. On one side, you'll have your regulated institutional markets and highly compliant spot exchanges like Coinbase, Bitflyer and Gemini. On the other side, you'll have your KYC-avoiding platforms that only work with cryptocurrency. Hopefully services like BitMEX and Binance can manage to keep up the good fight until we have more robust decentralized solutions for anonymous trading. |
|
|
|
<...>
Bitcoin mining is estimated to end around 2140. That’s quite a long way down the road, and none of us here will get to see it. Miners will have to shift to just monetarizing TX fees. Will Fees suffice? who knows. It’s such a long way down the road that we can’t really tell yet. This will be an issue long, long before 2140. By my back-of-the-envelope calculations, after only three more halvings, there will be around 600,000 bitcoins -- or 2.8% of the supply -- left to be mined. We won't be waiting hundreds of years to see if fees adequately replace inflation. More like a decade or two. |
|
|
|
Do you think this new person will hear people from the forum or will listen to analysts' opinions?
the answer is easy: the person will hear the opinion of the analysts, because for any new person (including myself at 2 years ago) heard the opinion of analysts. I don't think most of these analysts are malicious. I think the market is simply unpredictable. No one should assume it can be predicted. Newbies need to make their own mistakes and learn not to follow other peoples' predictions blindly. This will only happen through experience. This isn't a problem. In markets, people either sink or learn to swim. |
|
|
|
|
Put me down for $12,000. No real analysis or anything. I just think things might slow down this quarter. $12,000 seems like a nice boring number given all the craziness of the past couple months.
|
|
|
|
Can crypto ultimately replace fiat money? I don't see this trend happening even though more vendors are accepting crypto.
Any eCommerce vendors here? I want to hear from you. Hoping your result is different from mine.
In these early adopter days, most users are investors holding for higher prices. Everyone is speculating about usage and network utility years and decades down the road. It doesn't make sense to buy bitcoins -- incurring bank transfer fees, trading commissions, and Bitcoin network fees -- then use them for day-to-day spending shortly after. Holders tend to wait for significant price gains before spending. This dynamic may change when Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies' speculative gains are mostly priced in and mass adoption has already taken place. At that point, people will still hoard bitcoins because of their scarcity and opt for cryptocurrencies with higher inflation or lower fees. But banking fees and trading commissions will be less of an issue since most people will own cryptocurrency at that point. |
|
|
|
Tokenization is the process of turning things into digital assets. Is this same as Securitization? How these 2 are different from each other?
Also, I came across STOs. How this is related to Tokenization?
Anyone please explain me, I am new to all these things.
There is some confusion between the terms "securitization" and "security." STOs are security token offerings. They are blockchain tokens that represent securities -- in this case, equity securities that constitute equity ownership in the issuing company. Basically, they are issuing and selling company stock just like a company would in an IPO. Securitization refers to something different. It's about pooling together different assets (like debts) and packaging them into tradable financial instruments. You can read about securitization here. |
|
|
|
Apparently CipherTrace and Shyft have an answer to the privacy concerns around customer data sharing vis-a-vis the new FATF guidelines. They'll create a "proof-of-knowledge identity protocol that doesn’t relinquish user information" -- and I guess we'll just have to take them at their word. Always nice to have the likes of CipherTrace watching our backs -- and sniffing around our wallets.  According to a press release shared with Bitcoin Magazine, the partnership wants to mediate between government officials, crypto companies and cryptocurrency users by creating a proof-of-knowledge identity protocol that doesn’t relinquish user information. In function, this would resemble something like a zero-knowledge proof, which is a cryptographic function that allows one party to reveal that it knows certain information without conveying the information itself.
The solution involves a smart contract platform with shared access between exchanges and other relevant cryptocurrency service companies. This cryptographically secured tool will facilitate an identity hub that will satisfy FATF’s crypto travel rule while also keeping the true identity and information of each user concealed.
“Our focus is on creating federated standards for identity, which are blockchain agnostic,” Joseph Weinberg, Shyft’s founder, is quoted as saying in the release. “We make sure KYC checks can be transferred across networks in a secure manner without compromising identity information. This program bridges a critical gap between new regulatory standards and existing exchange operations to greatly strengthen the crypto ecosystem with a practical implementation of the FATF’s Travel Rule.”
This doesn’t mean that exchanges and regulators won’t have access to personal info if they want it, however. The data bridge will allow its overseers to disclose information “when compelled to do so by legal authorities,” though this is already something that happens today (see Coinbase forking over user information to the IRS, for example). |
|
|
|
Hello Everyone,
My question is: How many people bought Bitcoin because of you? Hopefully zero.  I hate the idea of giving other people investment advice. I can flip some altcoins here and there, but I am no market guru. If I told someone to buy, the market might crash for the next year straight. I'd feel horrible about that, so I never tell people to buy. I drop hints that I use and trade Bitcoin sometimes, but I stick to the technology and general beginner stuff. I'm open about the fact that I think the price will be much higher someday, but when the discussion turns towards personal investments, I steer the subject elsewhere and tell them they're on their own. |
|
|
|
In the document, titled “Restricting contract for difference products sold to retail clients,” the FCA revealed that the regulator will soon publish a consultation paper (CP) on a potential ban on crypto derivatives such as bitcoin (BTC) futures and other crypto-related trading products.
The FCA wrote:
“We will shortly publish a CP on a potential ban on the sale to retail clients of derivatives and certain transferable securities that reference cryptoassets.” I wonder how this will affect British traders at BitMEX. Another country-wide ban incoming? I don't think they call their products CFDs but that's essentially what they are -- at least all their altcoin contract markets which are settled in Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Another platform beat Bakkt to the punch, eh?  I'm not sure Bakkt made the right choice relying on a license from the New York DFS. Still, neither ErisX nor LedgerX has an ETA for their launch date, so there's still a chance they could be the first one to launch. |
|
|
|
Is this even possible and/or worth the time and money put into retracing transactions? Even if they (in general) agree to not receive transfers from non-compliant exchanges, how much effort will they put into it. They just hire a company like CipherTrace to do it. I don't think it'll cost them much beyond what they're already paying for. They already analyze customer transactions -- both in and out -- to identify transfers to/from casinos and sportsbooks, and they terminate accounts over it. This is to comply with the Wire Act and UIGEA. They are prohibited from transferring money to/from gambling businesses on behalf of customers. I guess we need to wait and see what national regulations look like before making any assumptions. What will happen if somebody sends money to a third party first and then to the exchange, or sends money from a casino, or from a mixer?
It's going to be one of those laws people agree to obey and then they don't like speed limits and no parking signs.
It's becoming increasingly common for exchanges to hold funds hostage and demand proof showing the source of funds. To use Gemini as an example again, it's against their terms to send them coins from a mixer or a casino. They'll terminate your account over it. I hope they send your money back too. |
|
|
|
It is funny, in your mind, 4 pool operators would never 51% attack a coin,
because of the financial damage it would cause them.
But you think , Stakeholders would cause direct financial damage to themselves.
I suggest you reexamine your statements, because logically no one wants to harm their-selves financially,
but you think all stakeholders are on financial suicide watch, while all pool operators are not. You've misunderstood the point. Pools don't own the hash power. They can't leverage a sustained attack. That would require billions of dollars they don't have. If a handful of pools 51% attacked the network, they would only control the best chain for a matter of hours -- or minutes -- after which their customers would leave with their hash power. Colluding majority attackers in POS actually own the stake. They can attack the network indefinitely at zero cost. With infinitely lower costs to mount an attack, majority attacks are much more attractive in POS -- assuming there is sufficient value to be gained. These are apples and oranges. stakers require closer to 90% to dominate a network.  That doesn't make any sense. Please elaborate.  You also missed the point that the Government can locate any warehouse of ASICS,
merely by having the power company report excessive energy usage,
where as no one can determine the location of a PoS client by it's energy usage alone.
Also a PoS Client could be running off of wireless laptop and moving between alternative locations on a daily basis,
something a warehouse full of ASICS could never do.
This doesn't make up for POS's inferior security model. |
|
|
|
Well I did, back in 2014 (I think) I bought hundreds for about $250 each and and then got an equal number of bitcoin cash for free when that came out.
A year and a half ago used it to buy a new farm house and barn on 40 acres of land (ten acres pasture and rest forest), new tractor, soapstone wood stove, (and 20 percent capital gains tax). Still have quite a number left.
There - someone used it.
Well, you used it in exactly the way the OP is complaining about -- holding for years. I don't have any problem with that, myself. Just saying. Between Bitcoin's scarcity and the speculation about its future adoption as gold-like money, I can't blame anyone for holding it as an investment rather than spending it as a currency. |
|
|
|
* Funny , how no one worries that only 4 BTC Mining Pools can dominate all of Bitcoin. * Take us through a hypothetical attack scenario. What will miners who are pointing their hash power at these pools do, if the pool operators collude to 51% attack the network? Stay with those pools, or point their hash power elsewhere? Any rational miner will leave the pool. Maybe the attacking pools could "steal" their users hash power for some hours. What would be gained? Some censored transactions, maybe a small rollback? I would be curious to see the incentives that would even justify pool operators doing that. They'd be nailing their own coffin shut. * But with PoS it scares the hell out of them if 30 or more stakers could collude to dominate. * Between hardware, electricity and overhead costs, a sustained attack on Bitcoin requires billions of dollars. None of these costs exist in a pure POS network. Existing stakeholders can simply collude together at no cost. This is a permanent condition. This isn't like mining pools in Bitcoin who can only temporarily leverage other peoples' hash power. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
