The popularity of cryptocurrencies has seen exponential growth in the past few years. It all started with bitcoin, but now, there are over 18,000 cryptocurrencies in existence. This level of growth in such a short period is remarkable and has benefitted early adopters of the nascent industry.
Innovation seems to rise exponentially because most likely it is based on crypto technology available to build on. More platforms offering more opportunities = more crypto technology is launched Bitcoin is just a payments system, where you can't really build on and applications are really limited. Applications can be wallets but much more is just not necessary for Bitcoin. Blockchain 2.0 enables much more applications and developers can select from a wide range of Blockchain 2.0 platforms to build on. Opportunity is growing exponentially currently, because it just is discovered what's possible to use Blockchain 2.0 for. Especially, more cryptocurrencies means also more applications based on multiple cryptocurrencies, like multicoin wallets, swap platforms, analysis websites and similar. |
|
|
|
|
Mintlayer, interessant! Mit einer DeFi-Erweiterung von Bitcoin ist das Potential wirklich nicht zu unterschätzen. Ethereum würde dadurch seinen aktuell größten Vorteil gegenüber Bitcoin verlieren, wenn Bitcoin mit Mintlayer ebenfalls DeFi und NFT unterstützt.
Das Projekt scheint tiefgehend komplex zu sein und im ANN steht, dass Mintlayer an die Bitcoin-Blockkette gekoppelt sein wird, genauer an die einzelnen Bitcoin-Blöcke, was Mintlayer trotz der Verwendung von PoS immun gegen Langstreckenattacken macht.
Das wäre eine gute Lösung und ein großer Vorteil gegenüber der Konkurrenz, wie es der ANN schreibt.
Ist Mintlayer’s MNT dabei ein Token oder ein Coin? Im ANN deuten sie an, dass sie ihn als Token ausgeben aber dieser später auf die eigene Blockkette übertragen wird, welche dann PoS verwenden wird und an die Blockkette des Bitcoins gekoppelt sein wird.
Dann wäre es ein echter Coin oder ist es nur ein Token?
Zum Team liest man ebenfalls nichts, weder im ANN, noch auf der Webseite.
Gibt es Angaben zum Team, ob dieses aus Bitcoin-Entwicklern besteht oder zumindest von Bitcoin-Entwicklern unterstützt wird?
Dass der Coin vorgeschürft ist, lässt sich scheinbar nicht umgehen, könnte jedoch ein Problem bei der Akzeptanz bei vielen Bitcoin-Fundamentalisten sein.
Insgesamt ein spannender Coin!
Leider erfordert der Airdrop davon KYC, was wirklich schade ist!
Gibt es davon irgendwann wieder eine Signatur-Kampagne, weil die aktuelle ist pausiert?
|
|
|
|
Wenn die Entwickler den Hals nicht voll genug bekommen können.  Mit ihren hässlichen Affen sollten sie schon mehr als genug Geld für sich selbst generiert haben, warum dann noch einen nutzlosen Token? Natürlich springt Elon Musk da auf. Hohe Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass der Token ähnlich irrelevant wird wie SafeMoon. Wenn kein Hype mehr da ist, sinkt der Preis kontinuierlich. Oder der kontinuierliche Preisverfall kommt durch die Verkäufe des Teams?  Schade, dass solch ein Affentheater die legitimen Anwendungsfälle überdeckt, die die NFT-Technologie bietet, z.B. NFT-Tickets. |
|
|
|
|
Some people say, NFT is a big hype but we should be looking really closely to what most NFT's really are: useless and prone to loss.
NFT were launched as digital art to give up for sale and it got famous very fast because of hype. But as every hype, a justification needs to be searched and if NFT is really valuable to be bought for a high price.
But in reality, NFT has a huge risk:
Everyone needs to know about NFT: NFT's are completely illiquid. Each NFT needs a single buyer who decides to buy it and it will be really, really hard for you, to find someone willing to buy your single NFT.
Someone needs to see your NFT on Open Sea and pay your price.
A NFT is not like a coin or a token, where much liquidity is around because a coin or a token has many units to be requested by buyers. On exchanges, it is quite easily to sell your coins because liquidity is around. But no liquidity is around for a NFT. Your NFT needs a single buyer.
So many people are willing to buy BTC or a different coin, but how about YOUR single NFT? Not so much!
It is very unlikely to get a buyer for your single NFT because wise people will know how hard it will be to sell it again. So almost nobody wants to buy a NFT.
Some NFT are already dyed out and a statistic recently has shown a 90% loss of price for a wide range of NFT.
NFT is only interesting, when it's newly launched and it is hyped. But for re-selling, used NFT's are quite unpopular and likely to make a big loss.
NFT is just illiquid and prone for a big loss.
|
|
|
|
It is being seen that there are investors keeping their NFTs as a reserve instead of their coins.
Yes, it is very sad and risky. Because you need to know about NFT: NFT's are completely illiquid. Each NFT needs a single buyer who decides to buy it and it will be really, really hard for you, to find someone willing to buy your NFT. Someone needs to see your NFT on Open Sea and pay your price. A NFT is not like a coin or a token, where much liquidity is around because a coin or a token has many units to be requested by buyers. So many people are willing to buy BTC or a different coin, but how about YOUR single NFT? It is very unlikely to get a buyer because wise people will know how hard it will be to sell it again. So almost nobody wants to buy a NFT. Some NFT are already dyed out and a statistic recently has shown a 90% loss of price for a wide range of NFT. NFT is quite useless. It's illiquid and prone for a big loss. |
|
|
|
Risk of newcomers is still there, especially not so experienced in this field, less not careful, interested and complacent with fast income, to participate in events that are embarrassing when in the end there is no result, the activists of this, are still looking for new people, at least , must be aware of things like that, times have advanced, don't walk in place, just waste time. What's your point? Talking of "Risk of newcomers" when talking about Ponzis is mostly pointless because Ponzi's are scam! Risk of newcomers is better suited when talking about common mistakes but on legit content. In addition, OP is Ponzi owner, it's his site where he scams people. OP is a shame! I gave him a negative trust. |
|
|
|
|
How a token is launched and distributed is a very important part of a good project and a bad distribution can also fail good project ideas.
A lack of scarcity is a big red flag for any token.
We have seen it very often already.
While is good token distribution is important, we know much more points a good project needs to deliever:
A good team
a good project needs a good and experienced team. Crypto is a fast-changing industrie and projects need to keep up developing new features for advanced projects. For building a good project, it requires A LOT of knowledge, experience and how to proceed in a constantly evolving market.
Of course, a good, hardworking team is not a guarantee for a good project.
A good idea
A project, where no good idea is built, will quickly become useless.
Because who will be using it if it's not gonna be needed? We have already enough coins and tokens.
Only few projects are useful and unique.
So far, many coins have arrived but only few could establish a good project. Remember 4 years ago, maybe people still remember EOS, it was praised as a good project but it never gained traction because it was a centralized project depending on dPoS (delegated PoS, which is very centralized).
And so are many new projects today, doomed to fail because of a lack of decentralization because of greedy devs or just because it's an inflationary shitcoin. Some coins have very little legitimacy to exist and still people are falling for it because of hype.
Some coins are doing a good marketing to cover up a very bad product.
It's important to know how some projects are doing a fraudulent marketing to deceive inexperienced people.
For projects build on top of coins, it's very similar. Only very few were delievering a good project and 99% are meaningless very quicky. For each Uniswap, we can be sure are 99 failed swap platforms.
A very safe bet it to alocate a high percentage of risk calculating by only HODLing BTC and some ETH but be very careful for smaller coins / tokens.
= Smaller coins / tokens have a very high possibility to fail.
|
|
|
|
It is a problem for the newbies getting merits, the eagerness is endless as they anticipate merit in any content they have put up effort with.
You are right, it's indeed a problem and very hard to obtain a Merit. I have seen people sending a fraudulent Merit for low effort posts, like in local sections: German section here or here. It contributes no value, still a Merit. Merit should be reserved for well researched posts but still many well researched posts go unmerited and very many low quality posts go merited. We need a Merit police to punish giving a Merit to low effort posts. But it seem not coming. Is it that those who have excess of merits reserves their generosity or there are laid down principles in writing a Meritorious contents.
Let's discuss them
You need to focus your post on what is useful as a content, what people might be interested in. About education, about Bitcoin, about exposing scams and about improving Bitcointalk. Yes, Merit is very scarce and hard to obtain but it's not impossible to obtain a Merit. |
|
|
|
So i think this PDF is just a simple copy and paste thing from other Websites and not really your one work.
I accept your hate Wow, where is it "hate"? Lafu has just pointed out to you why you should be marking it where it is from, linking a source. You are claiming it is written by you, which is not true! At the end it doesn't matter, I'm not selling it. It's just a simple PDF that I wrote, nothing more, nothing less. I don't expect anything from it, I don't plan to sell it, I'm not even crypto enthusiast or fan. I just wrote that while educating myself
It does not matter if you want to sell it or don't want to sell it. Some accounts might send you a Merit as a reward and Merit is very hard to receive. Your attempt is not nice at all to people writing unique content. You have stolen content and passed it as your own content here by writing: I remembered that not so long ago I wrote a guide to cryptocurrency and blockchain. I was trying to keep it simple and plain, so even your grandma can understand it, hopefully.
I kept it on my laptop and forgot about it. I just wanted to share with you, no strings attached, after all, I did spend days researching and writing it, at least it might help someone.
You are liar and got busted! So here it is, feel free to share, reuse, whatever (but at least leave some credits): PDF guideYou are even requiring people to leave some credit for YOU from content you have STOLEN? LMAO get real! People writing own texts are very welcome at Bitcointalk but people passing someone else's content as own content are not welcome. |
|
|
|
"Nur" 500 betroffene Nutzer sind trotzdem 500 Nutzer zu viel, besonders bei einer so großen und bekannten Börse wie Crypto.com.  Stellt sich die Frage, wie gut Crypto.com reguliert ist oder ob sie Regularien umgehen. Laut BaFin ist Crypto.com noch nicht in Deutschland zugelassen (BaFin Lizenz). Nicht eure Schlüssel, nicht eure Münzen!  |
|
|
|
No wonder, scammers are still making a profit or new, inexperienced people are still falling for low-level scams. You also spammed your Scam in our local board and got criticism: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3987433.msg48867941#msg48867941Fair Ponzis don't exist! Scammers like you only delegitimize useful coins when you push your ponzi. Be ashamed! |
|
|
|
Das Axie Infinity zugrunde liegende Ronin Netzwerk wurde gehackt und es wurden $625 Millionen gestohlen. Seitens Ronin und Axie Infinity gibt es bereits eine Ankündigung zum Vorfall:
625 Millionen Dollar sind wirklich eine ganze Menge. Wie es scheint, sind die Nutzer von Axie Infinity überwiegend aus dem südostasiatischen Raum, da ist es besonders ärgerlich, wenn sie viel ihres Guthabens nicht vorher in sichere Coins umgewandelt haben. Hoffentlich lernen die Entwickler daraus und können in Zukunft weitere Hacks vermeiden aber solche Vorfälle sind bei DeFi leider an der Tagesordnung und ein Beweis dafür, dass man bei DeFi Produkten stets darauf aufpassen sollte, nicht ein zu hohes Risiko zu gehen, was schlimmstenfalls in einem Verlust enden kann. Sicher sind die Kryptowährungen halt letztendlich doch nur, wenn man sie selbst offline verwahrt. Abgesehen von der generellen Volatilität bei DeFi-Projekten aber selbst bei diesem Hack reagiert der Preis ziemlich wenig. |
|
|
|
|
Of course, a good, hardworking team is not a guarantee for a good project.
For building a good project, it requires A LOT of knowledge, experience and how to proceed in a constantly evolving market.
So far, many coins have arrived but only few could establish a good project. Remember 4 years ago, maybe people still remember EOS, it was praised as a good project but it never gained traction because it was a centralized project depending on dPoS (delegated PoS). And so are many new projects today, doomed to fail because of a lack of decentralization because of greedy devs or just because it's an inflationary shitcoin. Some coins have very little legitimacy to exist and still people are falling for it because of hype.
Some coins are doing a good marketing to cover up a very bad product. It's important to know how some projects are doing a fraudulent marketing to deceive inexperienced people.
For projects build on top of coins, it's very similar. Only very few were delievering a good project and 99% are meaningless very quicky. For each Uniswap, we can be sure are 99 failed swap platforms.
A very safe bet it to alocate a high percentage of risk calculating by only HODLing BTC and some ETH but be very careful for smaller coins / tokens.
Smaller coins / tokens have a very high possibility to fail.
|
|
|
|
You are right, Bitcoin has acting similarly to stock markets especially technically relevant stock markets like Nasdaq. We can consider Bitcoin treated somehow as a tech stock, where Bitcoin only has more volatility but is moving along similarly. I would assume, it's only a short term appearance as Bitcoin and stocks are going into an undecided direction. It is likely to change again when Bitcoin finally can profit from a more bullish market impression especially when Bitcoin's halving will come up again. But likely far sooner.  Bitcoin was inherently developed as a scarce asset, as a store of value and it's only a matter of time when Bitcoin will outperform Nasdaq again. |
|
|
|
Die Migration von PoW auf PoS hätte eigentlich mit Juni über die Bühne gehen sollen, verzögert sich aber jetzt noch um ein paar Monate.
Hätte schon überrascht, wenn Ethereum diesmal die Fristen einhält, was aber ein gutes Signal ist, dass gewissenhaft und nicht überhastet vorgegangen wird. Lieber gut geprüft als vorschnell und fehlerhaft veröffentlicht, wie der Hack von Axie Infinity zeigt. Was da an Ethereum verloren ging, ist wirklich enorm viel. Sollte ein ähnlicher Vorfall bei Ethereum passieren, weil die Neuerung schlecht durchdacht oder fehlerhaft gecodet ist, wäre das für Ethereum mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit der dauerhafte Verlust des zweiten Platzes. Ein Projekt dieser Dimension darf sich schon mal verzögern, da seh ich jetzt keine großen Probleme. Auch der Markt hat dementsprechend (nicht) reagiert.
Auf jeden Fall, das Vorhaben von Ethereum ist sehr ambitioniert. Der Markt richtet sich wirklich sehr nach Bitcoin, was in diesem Fall gut für Ethereum ist, ein Ethereum hält sich über 3.000 USD. Mit der Neuerung in Aussicht wäre es natürlich erfreulich, wenn sich Ethereum von Bitcoin lösen könnte. |
|
|
|
For 200$, you should be considering only non-Ethereum tokens, because if you buy an Ethereum token, you will likely have a huge amount of your funds wasted by fees. |
|
|
|
|
You are right, it might be useful to introduce a new category "ponzicoin" because new coins are often only launched to be a ponzi.
So many DOGE copies have been released providing no added value.
People should always avoid such coins because avoiding such coins will prevent price gains which makes ponzicoins unattractive and disliked.
Education is key and we should not support ponzicoins.
|
|
|
|
It's all to cover up bad reputation. Libra was already damaged before it launched but people won't be fooled again because it is easy to spot a currency launched by Facebook. People are very sceptical towards Libra because it's a centralized coin issued by Facebook and different big corporations control it. People should just avoid it and use fair coins. and of course Diem is a good name choice.
Yes, but it won't change people preventing from knowing how fraudulent Facebook's currency is. |
|
|
|
A well known stablecoin is Tether (USDT) and it has reached already a very high position on Coinmaketcap. Stablecoin suggests "stable" but it doesn't mean it is safe. Nobody really knows if all USDT ist backed 1:1 by USD. Wikipedia writes: On 30 April 2019 Tether Limited's lawyer claimed that each Tether was backed by only $0.74 in cash and cash equivalents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tether_(cryptocurrency) People holding USDT have a risk if USDT collapses to lose funds. Keep in mind, you should avoid USDT because people owning it have a high risk of holding a potentially fraudulent coin. It is very concerning to see such fraudulent coins at such high positions at Coinmarketcap. |
|
|
|
|
Every legit project runs a Medium site about news, updates, technical details, economic insights and much more. If a project doesn't have medium or isn't hosting the same news on their official website, we can assume it's a scam project or a very low quality project.
At least I would advise to avoid such projects, where no clear update structure is available.
It's also an option to search for an Telegram announcement channel but Medium is much better. Telegram announcement channels are not really a replacement for Medium / blog updates.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
