This depends on if the price of bitcoin is elastic, or inelastic.

Bitcoin is like money, people will always be needing to exchange their coin for goods/services, so there will always be a supply of bitcoin being "sold" for other things.

Once the block subsidy reaches zero, the block reward will be made up entirely of transaction fees. A long time before this happens, the majority of the block reward will be transaction fees, so miners will only be marginally affected.

If a company were to do this immediately before filing for bankruptcy, they would be forced to reverse this transaction by the bankruptcy court.

While I do agree that Celsius acted recklessly in making loans, I don't think they were a ponzi scheme. Celsius was essentially a bank, however, it does not appear they were very good at managing credit risk. Celsius would take deposits from their customers, and pay a lower interest rate than they expected to receive from loans made to borrowers using the money deposited.

I don't think this is a serious enough risk to warrant different deprivation paths to be used for each address type. If someone is using P2PKH addresses, you could similarly argue that their private keys would be leaked if the implementation is flawed. I think it would be better to use the default path for each address type for the wallet software you are using. This will make it simpler to recover your private key from the seed if you need to access your keys from a backup, which is a more realistic problem.

All that is needed to make something more difficult to brute force is a larger scope of possible inputs. The number of potential seed phrases is large enough that it is very unlikely that someone will ever be able to brute force an existing seed. In order for a seed to be "more secure", it will need to be more difficult to find the seed via some means other than brute force.

---

The problem is that it is very difficult to know if the process of generating a number (seed) is in fact random. In other words, it is difficult to test that a procedure generates a random number.

I don't think I can argue with you on this one, at least in principle. Celsius may or may not have known the purpose of the loan, but it seems that if they did know the purpose, they had very lax standards.

Forum lenders don't take deposits, which I am aware of, and anyone trying to take deposits would likely quickly be labeled a scammer.

They made that statement in 2019, and it is possible that their business model had subsequently changed. I am not sure how much demand there is for fully collateralized crypto loans. It is also possible that greed got the better of whoever made (and approved) the decision to make these risky loans, as I would think if they turned out better, they would have made Celsius a lot of money.

Because the Chinese government should be trusted by default. In the meantime, China will continue to build additional coal power plants and will take other measures to increase its carbon emissions.

In the West, governments are actually taking steps to becoming less energy independent.

I am sure that he was paid well during his tenure, so even if the reports are false, he is likely to be okay financially. It is pretty rare for someone who once ran a business to not try again.

Luna is probably off topic here, but its recent collapse was not the first time that something similar had happened to a stablecoin that was not backed by actual assets. I don't think Luna's model is sound because someone can bring down the coin by buying up a lot of it over time, and quickly dumping it onto the market, causing its dollar peg to break, removing confidence in the coin.

The automatic stay from the bankruptcy filing will put the lawsuit on hold. I am not aware of any evidence that Celsius was a ponzi. I think it is more accurate to say that Celsius made risky investments (loans) that turned bad.

I am aware of the feature and notice it. The feature may not be all that well known.

It seems that using the above BB code will result in "google.com" to be displayed, however it will show as "bitcointalk.org" when previewing the post. It seems that saving the post will actually remove the BB code, and will only have the link after the "url=". Probably another good feature

I noted before that the hypothecation of collateral increases risk to Celsius, although it does not mean that a loan 50% secured by collateral is now entirely unsecured, it means that Celsius has increased their leverage.

Banks make unsecured loans all the time without issue, as I noted before, credit card debt is generally unsecured, and is so profitable for banks that they have resorted to giving customers rewards for using their credit cards. There are a few forum members who have made a business out of lending, sometimes without collateral. I am sure that some of these loans have gone bad, but I believe their business is overall profitable, net of losses.

My issue is not with Celsius making unsecured loans, my issue is with the purpose of the loans, and the (what I believe) lack of documenting borrowers' ability to repay the loans.  Making a loan to a business for the purpose of buying speculating on NFTs is basically the same as giving someone a loan for gambling. Gambling loans are very risky (for obvious reasons), and anyone who borrows for this purpose needs to have the ability to repay said loan via other reliable sources of income. I can't imagine how Celsius could have documented 3AC's ability to repay their loan via some way other than their NFT bets being successful.

If I am thinking of the same warning message, that warning is only displayed with newbies send a PM, and it is displayed for all newbies, regardless of PM content. The person who sent the OP the PM is a Junior Member

The URL is clickable, but the forum has implemented a security feature that will display links to the bitcointalk forum as green when the user hovers their mouse over the link, and will display as blue for all other links. The link in question was not to a bitcointalk forum page and was displayed as green

It might be better to take a file path as input, and have the script output the keys to that particular file path. If the intended use is for the script to output to a txt file, there shouldn't be the potential for it to output to the console output.

The climate is in fact changing over the long term, but that doesn't mean that it is being caused by humans, that there is anything that humans can do to stop/reverse it, nor that it will result in harm to the ability to inhabit the planet. There have been multiple cycles of climate over long periods of time, for example, many years ago, there was the ice age.

Measures to "fight" climate change are really a means to make the West weaker economically and militarily compared to China.

When I try to post the above BB code in a post, the link does not show up as green when I hover over the link. While this is a phishing link, santhosh121081 was not able to beat the anti-phishing measures of the forum.

Anyone can be a scammer, but that does not mean that everyone should be treated like a scammer if there is no evidence they are a scammer.

Sure, it is possible that GazetaBitcoin is an alt of some scammer, but I am not aware of any evidence to suggest that is the case. Nor am I aware of any accusations of GazetaBitcoin scamming anyone, credible or otherwise.

I would compare this to TF, whose case has a set of facts that I do not believe are disputed (and that I understand are accepted by TF), which makes me believe that TF has not honored his obligations to certain members of the community. You can argue semantics as to what he should be called, but I think it is reasonable to not entrust him with your money.

Celsius, and other lending platforms operate essentially the same way that banks operate -- that is they borrow money from depositors, and lend money out, and pocket the difference between what they pay in interest, and what they receive in interest via loan payments (less loan losses). If a platform can sufficiently manage risk, including not making risky loans, (and matching loan maturities with when they need to repay their lenders/deposit holders), they have a solid business model.

This is an example (if true) of Celsius throwing all risk out of the window.

It is not uncommon for banks to successfully lend without collateral, for example, most credit cards are unsecured loans, and credit cards are so profitable for banks that they often pay customers to use them (via new account bonuses and rewards). Banks also often lend to businesses successfully, although the underwriting process is often more complex. If Celsius really made a loan to a 3AC to buy NFTs, I think it is fair to say that the underwriting process was too complex for Celsius.

I'd be interested to see what Mashinsky does next after he likely loses his job after Celsius likely either goes out of business or is sold.

Celsius currently has negative equity to the tune of at least a billion dollars (according to their numbers). This is almost certainly going to result in losses for their customers.

I think the mining loan is probably more of an example of Celsius engaging in risky behavior. Miners are not trivial to liquidate, especially in large numbers, and mining is an inherently risky proposition.

The more details about Celsius' business practices in recent time, the lower opinion I have about their management.

I would say with near certainty that the numbers in the bankruptcy filing are not intentionally inflated. Celsius has no reason to inflate these numbers. No sane person is going to deposit additional coin onto their platform, including coin for collateral for a loan. The bankruptcy filing will put all litigation on hold (prevent litigation from being filed/initiated), and any actual values will eventually come out, if the values are misrepresented.

There is the potential that some of the numbers are missing some context, or are based on faulty assumptions, but I don't think they are being intentionally misrepresented.

If there is a bad person who has the intent of doing bad things, if they do not have access to a gun, they can just as easily use other weapons, that in many cases are more difficult to defend against, such as a car or a truck, or a knife.

If this is true, it is likely that Coinify is unaffected by the bankruptcy filing.

The effect of Voyager's bankruptcy filing on Conify depends largely on the legal structure and relationship between the two entities.

Johnson was trying to raise taxes on corporations, raised the payroll tax, had a "net zero" emissions goals for England, in addition to crazy covid policies, among other things.

None of the above is what voters voted for, nor is what he campaigned on.