Bitcoin has been running for years and remains the top 1 cryptocurrency until now and I have never heard of bitcoin being attacked. We all know a lot of scammers out there, so maybe it could happen, but until now no one has succeeded in attacking bitcoin because it is too difficult.
Well Andreas Antonopoulos likes to put it differently and I personally believe he is most likely right. He says that we can be sure that Bitcoin gets attacked all the time. Maybe not so much anymore these days but the reason that we believe it hasn't been attacked is that Bitcoin hasn't been successfully attacked yet. In Blockchain you either crack or it or you don't, it is a binary thing. If someone breaks into your house it might be different as you may be able to see some evidence afterwards even though the attack wasn't successful. |
|
|
|
Would you say its been going on for some time now? Even back then I wonder why would ppl talk about it so freely etc.
I don't think this issue solely pertains to Bitcoin. Who would go on the streets and call out publicly that he or she owns a shit ton of jewelries or valuable watches? Or who would say that they have a bag of money in their basement? I think it is much more basic than saying that claiming to have Bitcoin is dangerous. I would just not brag about my wealth or specific possessions in general. |
|
|
|
The banking system will exist almost as long as the state exists. After all, the banking system serves the economy of any state and is actually part of it.
Bitcoin or cryptocurrency is generally not capable of destroying the banking system either in theory or in practice. A decentralized cryptocurrency should not conflict with the banking system, otherwise it may lose this confrontation. A decentralized cryptocurrency can and should develop in parallel with the current payment systems.
Banking system serves as the main financial institutions of one nation, it represent the strength of the country. There's no need to compete if there's a chance to use the same system such as blockchain. Both currencies will be able to co-exist without any problem if they will allow both sides to transact and adopt both system. it will be difficult for BTC to break the financial institute so there's no need to try doing it, but instead embrace things as part of its existence and future success. This is not necessarily true that it only represents the strength of a nation as you call it. Banks are well known to be functioning as rent-seeking institutions that slow down innovation tremendously and hinder change on purpose. Their business is the easiest you can have in the world. You just take a straw and out it in the streams of financial transactions, and then you start sipping step by step. For every single transaction that goes through your system you just take a sip. Sounds good? Doesn't really sound like a good system to me. |
|
|
|
Unfortunately, not all schools have even Economics as the subject. The government is not interested in making their people financial free as they will not have tools to manipulate people then, so they don't want to have us aware of investment. On the other hand, if countries adapt crypto as a national currency, they will have to teach people how to use it.
I guess almost all school teach economics, but a different kind of economics. There are various forms for economies to be operated and depending on what the government wants their education system to teach people, they will put in on the agenda. Certainly in countries where power over the people is crucial to the government, Bitcoin will probably not be part of that agenda. |
|
|
|
In my opinion, regulation, practicality, and stability are definitely required for the mass adoption of crypto as a payment method/currency.
What are your opinions on this?
I personally do not like regulations and I don't think it can in any way help in the mass adoption of Bitcoin if that's the coin in question, regulations are even inimical to the growth of the network, these regulations are imposed by the government and it's basically obvious that most of this governments do not want the Bitcoin network to attain mass adoption, just because they can't control it and cause it puts control in the hands of its users, I don't think there's any of such government sanctions that is channeled at making the network better, it's all in a bid to quell its development, make it difficult for people to use it and in that way make popular their central bank digital currencies. Bitcoin does not really have to be stable to get to mass adoption, volatility is even an aspect of the network that most of its investors like, and it can be a reason why more people get allured to the network, I believe the best thing for mass adoption of Bitcoin is when people understand the importance and benefits of being their own bank, that way more people will appreciate the relevance of the network and would want to use it, so as to control their finances and take it a bit away from the hands of the government. That really depends on who you are targeting. If you want the skeptics to adopt new technologies like Bitcoin, a sophisticated legal framework can certainly be helpful in achieving mass adoption among exactly that group. I know you are talking about laws that might rather hinder adoption, but you can't say that any law or set of rules sets free the full spectrum of effects in the same way in every individual. While more regulation might mean to us that it's bad, others might say that it finally happens and now is the time to get into crypto. |
|
|
|
Imagine you bought a lot of bitcoin, then Elon Musk caused a fud due to energy consumption, then there was a recovery and a new all-time high rn, but the Tesla firm still made a lot of money. Sometimes I wonder whether this is all calculated and analyzed because Tesla and Elon Musk are doing so well in the crypto world. It was to expected that they do well. Given the size of their company, but even more important the image of Elon Musk, everything that is put into one sentence with Tesla and Elon turns into gold more or less. That's because Elon by now has proven he is able to pull off quite a couple of things at the same time which nobody has ever done before him. I wouldn't even call it manipulation to a full degree. If you are a man with such a net worth, reputation, companies in the back and popularity, it almost doesn't even matter what you say, something will happen afterwards. Steve Jobs' glasses were a bestseller for quite some time. It's just how the crowd works. |
|
|
|
I get the idea, but that putting Bitcoin as something that helps the Taliban doesn't look good to me.
“Doesn’t look good for you”, but there’s no “you” or “me” in the blockchain, and the transactions that happen in the blockchain. If you care about Bitcoin adoption/usage, you would show "good" usage of Bitcoin. But “good usage” and “bad usage” does not exist in the blockchain. In the blockchain, they’re only mere transactions made by one entity to another, neutral, and censorship-resistant. If you tag me as someone who “doesn’t care” about Bitcoin adoption because of that opinion, OK then tag me.  @Wind_FURY I would say that the thing with your statement is that it is entirely true, but will be portrayed by Bitcoin opponents and the media in a different way regardless. That doesn't stop Bitcoin, but it might slow it down in so far as the skeptics get a confirmation of their misguided understanding (or simply the lack thereof) of Bitcoin and what it is all about. They twist the neutrality proposition of Bitcoin into something that is bad because when everyone is the same it would mean the bad guys are as good as the good guys and vice versa, while not understanding that (quote:) "“good usage” and “bad usage” does not exist in the blockchain". |
|
|
|
Which exchangess? Most of the US based ones, like Coinbase & Gemini will close your account if they think funding is coming from a mixer. There are lots of discussions about that happening here and on many other sites. Other ones, in other parts of the world, who knows. Depends on their mood and how much BTC. Also, if you are not doing a straight BTC -> fiat exchange may be a bit less strict. Where some others, really don't care at all. As for if it's from a mixing transaction or not. Depends who you ask: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1935098.msg58313016#msg58313016-Dave Yes I guess that makes a lot of sense as US based exchanges are under very strict scrutiny and pressure to live up to compliance requirements. I can think of a good number of exchanges that wouldn't care at all. At the same time those are also exchanges where you sometimes fear that they might have closed their doors the next morning you wake up. Also, the OP is talking small amount only, so maybe, that is the reason why it was not flagged down because the exchange maybe just let it pass. But if you are talking of good amount of money, that's when you start getting nervous as the exchange may double check your transaction. So I believe, this is a case to case basis. Don't get too confident if initially, the exchange didn't flag you down, and you're thinking that next they won't because they may flag you next time. I don't think the amount of money matters that much when an exchange has outlined a clear and strict policy. They have done that for a reason then. Particularly those US based exchanges are most likely closely cooperating with law makers and law enforcement so there wouldn't be any exceptions to the rule unless something goes undetected, which might rather be the case for smaller amounts than for bigger amounts of money. |
|
|
|
Which exchangess? Most of the US based ones, like Coinbase & Gemini will close your account if they think funding is coming from a mixer. There are lots of discussions about that happening here and on many other sites. Other ones, in other parts of the world, who knows. Depends on their mood and how much BTC. Also, if you are not doing a straight BTC -> fiat exchange may be a bit less strict. Where some others, really don't care at all. As for if it's from a mixing transaction or not. Depends who you ask: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1935098.msg58313016#msg58313016-Dave Yes I guess that makes a lot of sense as US based exchanges are under very strict scrutiny and pressure to live up to compliance requirements. I can think of a good number of exchanges that wouldn't care at all. At the same time those are also exchanges where you sometimes fear that they might have closed their doors the next morning you wake up. |
|
|
|
Afghanistan's Taliban government is pressing for the release of billions of dollars of central bank reserves as the drought-stricken nation faces a cash crunch, mass starvation and a new migration crisis.
Afghanistan parked billions of dollars in assets overseas with the U.S. Federal Reserve and other central banks in Europe, but that money has been frozen since the Islamist Taliban ousted the Western-backed government in August.
https://www.xm.com/research/markets/allNews/reuters/just-give-us-our-money-taliban-push-to-unlock-afghan-billions-abroad-44779875The Taliban will never EVER see that money again. If only there was a robust, self-sovereign, censorship-resistant currency that an entity can actually HODL in their own actual custody, without any counterparty trust. Isn't it surprising enough that they did at all decide to hold all that money with banks essentially out of their reach in times of crises or coordinated attacks? Who would do that? I am puzzled, I mean they most likely did plan their attacks for a long time. Maybe they thought transferring that money out might be a suspicious on their behalf? |
|
|
|
Wouldn't it be public anyway whether Tesla holds Bitcoin or not? As a publicly listed company they would owe that information to investors/potential investors if I am not mistaken? Especially as Bitcoin is a highly speculative asset I would think that owning Bitcoin would at least require a note in their financial reporting.
"Operating income increased substantially YoY mainly due to vehicle volume growth and cost reduction. Positive impacts were partially offset by ASP decline, growth in operating expenses, lower regulatory credit revenue, additional supply chain costs, Bitcoin-related impairment of $51M and other items" This was written on telsa financial report of Q3 this year, they mentioned bitcoin in their financial summary. Reference : https://ir.tesla.com/#tab-quarterly-disclosureOk interesting that they put it that way, but I believe if someone wanted to they could certainly find out how many of the assets Tesla holds actually is in digital assets or currencies. I would at least have thought so. Maybe I am wrong and they can indeed disguise how many Bitcoin they hold. |
|
|
|
I think it will happen sooner or later and only when the structure, the infrastructure is shaped to allow the synthesis of educational knowledge for the right sense of use for bitcoin. Feasibility of legal acceptance is slowly taking shape, and some countries are restructuring additional terms to decide. I think, Bitcoin LN solutions will come closer in practice.
It will be the approval of the time for mass adoption by the conditions under consideration.
Legal acceptance will be the much bigger issue as that is what causes FUD, which is understandable. I do however believe that legal acceptance will only slow adoption down, but not hinder it from its breakthrough eventually. Take into account that politicians also don't live forever. So those making laws against crypto today might be replaced very soon by politicians who make pro crypto regulation. Everything could really change up but if we are basically talking about human lifespan or terms of service then this would take out ages and we are also aging too which means we might not able to see into those times where most of those who do have position will have positive views and perceptions towards bitcoin which is really sad to think off that's why most of us do really rush up on seeing things as soon as possible but we know on how reality works and this isn't something that can really happen in few years time so deal with it. No I am not even talking about a whole generation (25 years or so), but rather about 10 years, maybe 15 years. Over that period of time there will be some new politicians, more modern politicians with a better understanding of technology, innovation and in specific decentralized currencies. Right now the congresses look like retirement homes. Why would they even want something like Bitcoin to succeed? Human beings are born to stick to what they are used to. That is the way of least resistance. That is where a dissonance emerges when people age but new technologies emerge and with that technology younger human beings who get used to it from their very first day of life. I think we'll see massive change within the next 10 years with regards to Bitcoin's public reception and acceptance. |
|
|
|
This is a sign that the crypto world is increasingly popular around the world and many large companies want to work with it, as you said Mastercard is a large company that stores many assets so that every transaction that is done there are no obstacles so that we are comfortable in using, if later their cooperation can run well then crypto cards are easy for us to use, And this will also have a positive impact on the crypto market itself, although this is only a business from Mastercard but cooperation like this expect.
A bank or payment provider that ignores an asset class that is worth more than two trillion dollars by now must be insane. This is similar to Steve Ballmer claiming that the Iphone will fail with the difference being that cryptocurrencies have already a proven track record. Mastercard, if you ask me, took even quite long to really get on board. |
|
|
|
I think it will happen sooner or later and only when the structure, the infrastructure is shaped to allow the synthesis of educational knowledge for the right sense of use for bitcoin. Feasibility of legal acceptance is slowly taking shape, and some countries are restructuring additional terms to decide. I think, Bitcoin LN solutions will come closer in practice.
It will be the approval of the time for mass adoption by the conditions under consideration.
Legal acceptance will be the much bigger issue as that is what causes FUD, which is understandable. I do however believe that legal acceptance will only slow adoption down, but not hinder it from its breakthrough eventually. Take into account that politicians also don't live forever. So those making laws against crypto today might be replaced very soon by politicians who make pro crypto regulation. |
|
|
|
As Bitcoin price relies on around $58,000 investors are already recording their profits and one among them is Tesla, a company own and operated by Elon Musk a popular cryptocurrency whale. The company bought 43,200 Bitcoins sometime in February 2021 have yielded a 65% that is 1 billion dollars profits at the present Bitcoin price.
So, I am guessing they are very lucky for not selling their Bitcoin. They were really at the brink of selling the bitcoins they bought in the market, but I don’t know why they changed their mind and didn’t sell it anymore. Even on Twitter when Elon Musk started making some comments that made people believe that he is no longer interested in Bitcoin, there were lots of speculation going round that Tesla must have sold their Bitcoin and that would result in the market crashing at anytime. But at some point nobody talked about it anymore, even those that talked about it were not able to prove that they really sold their coins. Is good to realize that they never sold it. Well, it was not sure if Elon Musk is telling the truth or not, or that he just want to divert the mind of the people to give no influence anymore. However, it wasn't believable as people have known already that Tesla company holds a huge chunk of Bitcoin, and Elon Musk is the author of such purchases. Yes, indeed. If they decide to sell them all, it certainly affects and crashes the market price but we don't see it and it comes to our mind that they just hold it and we don't know why. Wouldn't it be public anyway whether Tesla holds Bitcoin or not? As a publicly listed company they would owe that information to investors/potential investors if I am not mistaken? Especially as Bitcoin is a highly speculative asset I would think that owning Bitcoin would at least require a note in their financial reporting. |
|
|
|
Yes, taxes aren't as bad as many people say or believe they are, but it is certainly important to consider what those taxes spent on. If every government in the world starts raising taxes in order to increase military expenses, I'd say that higher taxes are pretty bad. It is a question of context of course, I know, if one country spends a ton of money on military stuff, other countries are implicitly forced to do the same. I hope the higher taxes find their way to foster good causes. |
|
|
|
If I were you I will wait for the correction and retracement of ethereum before entering and buying it because I don't want to get FOMOed and buy high. Always remember to enter and accumulate every dip not every time that it is bullish.
In order to avoid buying high, you need to know what "high" means. Is Ethereum high right now? In a sense yes, because otherwise it wouldn't be hovering around its all time high, but then it is also possible that it breaks out and goes towards four figures at full speed. Really tough to tell here and I wouldn't bet my house on neither of both possibilities. Today it looks very healthy and stable, but that could change tomorrow. Just don't go all in, buy in tranches and build up your position over time no matter which direction it takes in the short-term. |
|
|
|
I have all of these coins:
ETH 40%
CARDANO 20%
POKALDOT 20%
TERRA LUNA 5%
THETA 15%
Avax: 10%
Are my coins going to last is it likely?
Hm, maybe you should elaborate on what you mean by "survive"? And also five years is quite a long time but I guess still short enough to give at least an educated guess. As many here said, Ethereum is the most likely to be around, and not only be around but also be successful (at least in terms of market cap). It has established itself as an attractive asset even for institutional investors. As for the others, hard to tell where they will be at. They will definitely "survive" in the sense that they won't be entirely dead. I also don't think that they will be dumped to oblivion, but you never know. If development stops or innovation rules them out in a way then everything is possible. |
|
|
|
So I'm about to invest in cryptos for about 1500 euro after trying it out in september with great failure, lost a bunch, bought high and sold low cause I needed the money. Now actually I'm thinking of flipping coins, find good coins in dip and sell them in pump and repeat in other coins, I'm gonna stop cashing out cryptos in need of money.
You used to trade on emotions and it was a terrible mistake. You need to be disciplined and make up your own strategy to become successful. It will be great if you manage to find good coins on lows and wait until pump, but actually, not always even good coins go up, so you need to be patient and know when to sell off so as to fix profit or at least not to lose too much. No, he didn't trade on emotions. He traded out of necessity, which is even worse to begin with. If you don't give yourself a sufficiently long time horizon for your investments to perform, you get stuck in exactly the situation you found yourself in and you got to sell out of necessity. Even though crypto is extremely fast and volatile, be somewhat realistic about your expectations. If you hope for a coin to double within a week but instead it drops by 20% and you have to sell, that's just your fault. Take money that you can indeed just leave where it is for a very good while. That's how you can swallow short-term decreases in price and be patient for the pump that you expect based on your analysis. |
|
|
|
Not so my friend. It all depends on how the strategy will be used even though the assets they have are Bitcoin and Ethereum. If the current price has reached the profit target, then choosing not to keep or choosing to sell can also be the right strategy to do.
This has indeed become a benchmark for everyone when they have seen good profits in the assets they have owned for a long time even though after selling them they will also expect another market correction to be able to enter optimally when the coin price starts to low. These strategies are often doomed to fail. You can't know when the price reached an interim peak, may drop then that you can buy in lower and then benefit from another rally. If that works out you either have some very valuable information why that should happen the way you expect or hope for it to happen, or you are just damn lucky. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
