CDBCs vs Bitcoin is a very interesting discussion to have. There are pros and cons to both. And to different sorts of users.
[...]
Pros and cons to both.. fuck that nonsense... [...] You are, as you tend to do, inferring things I do not mean. [...] Well, don't say it then. [...] Jay, cAPSLOCK does not like CDBCs, he's just being realistic... Every now and then I tangle with a JJG autism flare up. It is what it is. |
|
|
|
CDBCs vs Bitcoin is a very interesting discussion to have. There are pros and cons to both. And to different sorts of users.
Pros and cons to both.. fuck that nonsense... snap out of it cAPSLOCK... There are no pros to CDBCs except from a panopticon perspective.. and yeah, maybe CBDCs would work good in an institution or in a jail.. and I refuse to consider citizens (or member of the populous) as either inmates or institutionalized.... Otherwise, you brought up good points in your post.. except that "pros and cons to both" bullshit.  Get a damned grip.  You are, as you tend to do, inferring things I do not mean. It should be clear what I think about the CDBC vs BTC debate which is coming, whether or not we want it to. Here are some of the things they will say are reasons CDBCs are superior: - Lost or stolen CDBCs can be replaced without cost
- Stolen CDBCs can be cancelled and be made unusable or even made to disappear.
- CDBCs retain the central authority of the central banks
- CDBCs can have programmed interest rates, including negative interest rates
- CDBCs can be locked to an individual identity
- CDBCs can be tracked at a granular level
- Terrorists and other criminals can be stopped from being able to use their money (as well as protesters the bankers do not like etc)
Another angle you know is going to get worked is the whole "social justice"/equity/privilege angle... and the people who bite are gonna bite hard. *I* do not see ANY of those things in that list as a PRO. I see all of those things adding up to a draconian nightmare. But there are people who will see all those as advantages. Obviously the central bankers will. But so will ordinary citizens. A very smart person I know (she is a bitcoinner now) when I first explained how bitcoin worked immediately asked me this: "So if my bitcoin are lost or stolen, that is 100% final? There is no way to get them back? I am not sure how to see this as better!" It took a little while for me to explain that this settlement finality IS INDEED a feature, not a bug and while you can always add guarantees or insurance to a transaction, there is no way to add that level of finality to an asset that does not settle that way. You can always ADD a trusted third party (like a bank) but if they are in the equation by design you can never take them away. The powers that be are going to sell CDBCs VERY HARD. And that list has some of the points they will use. PROs by THEIR definition, not mine. But we will need to be ready to expose those for the CONs they are. |
|
|
|
I am not holding my breath yet. Or is it not not holding ... whatever... I will be very pleased if the architects of the controlled demolition of the west find Bitcoin to be compatible... lol. But since CDBCs are such a huge part of their plans... CDBCs vs Bitcoin is a very interesting discussion to have. There are pros and cons to both. And to different sorts of users. For example with a CDBC the powers that be can expire the credits of the rich and airdrop on the poor. This will polarize the users. And poor folks and illegal immigrants etc are going to like getting "free money". And CDBCs can be much more easy to navigate, and replace etc. On the surface they look almost identical to people who do not understand the HUGE fundamental differences. Damn these are interesting times. Still thinking about this... I do NOT see a path forward with BTC and CDBCs on any sort of level playing field where Bitcoin does not absolutely DESTROY CDBCs. As soon as the rich realize the banks will open up a drain on their accounts they will FLOCK to BTC. In fact they already know this. And Canada accidentally let the curtain up for just a moment. They will cancel the money of anyone they want at any time. And they can't cancel Bitcoin. CDBCs vs BTC. This is not even a fight. They HAVE to know they have already lost this... What did the brainstorming sessions about "what to do with Bitcoin" sound like I wonder... Thre is no way they are gonna roll over. I am still worried. |
|
|
|
You can feel that, right?
This sure has been a shitty supercycvle.
So far.
Posted this... went to sleep. and LOOK! I was right once!?!? And I have come to proclaim that we have a SUPER RARE chart formation... "the Dorito of Fortune". And this only can go up from here... (though it might drop a little when the ACTUAL EO comes out... USA CDBC whee!!!)  Also to the Dude: It was just a few years ago when I got my first dog... He is sitting right here next to me. He's a bully breed like your best friend. But a bit smaller. I am very sorry for you, my friend. |
|
|
|
|
You can feel that, right?
This sure has been a shitty supercycvle.
So far.
|
|
|
|
Testing, testing, 1... 2... 3... Is this thing on?  Just the start gents... And we will get to see how well Bitcoin can route around the coming disruptions. |
|
|
|
|
Every move the Biden administration is in line with the goal of destroying the USD reserve currency status, creating poverty and starvation in the US (and west in general), the continuation of the destruction of small businesses while the giant ones get even stronger, and ultimately to pave the way for the New World Order, or Great Reset, or whatever they are calling it this week.
The decisions they are making do seem STUPID when you take them at face value. But that is not truly the reason for the decisions. Once you realize what is, then you see that every decision lines up perfectly with the goals of the people actually calling the shots.
Bracing for the "crypto" EO. I expect it to be pretty negative. Most likely some sort of ban on "self hosted wallets" will be part of it, I'd think. At least.
|
|
|
|
[...] What's the dust limit if it isn't $0.01? Well. I do spend a few piconeros to consolidate outputs from time to time.  I suppose one downside to the project is you are virtually paid out of the coinbase. There is as limited a middleman as possible and the coinbase it divided up into tiny chunks and sent out frequently. As you can see I am getting payments about every 3-4 hours. And they tend to be betyween .0003 and .0012. So once I get a few dozen of them I sweep them into a single output... I *think* in monero you can sometimes run into transactions with too many inputs. But I do not know for sure. I am paying for space on the blockchain just to not have a bunch of mo-nickels. Thanks to smooth for the history tweak. I had sort of forgotten that some of the early folks DID intend to install the tail emission. But there were some of us who did not as well... and some of those fought up until the time it was decided. Wasn't Ricardo among those who were against it? I came in to monero AFTER the few who forked it... but RIGHT after. |
|
|
|
Putin could end this, but he's not the man he used to be. He was known to be rational with his decisions, but i can't see any rationality here. I guess that ongoing isolation in the fear of SARS-CoV-2 messed with his brain.
I feel sorry for everyone involved and having to suffer, regardless of nationality. This war is completely unnecessary. It's the result of a couple of complex happenings, from the pandemic, to various (also inter-) national political parties, economic forces and their shared weakness of corruption, and not to forget: Foreign influential agendas carried out over the course of years.
Sanity seems to become even more scarce than Bitcoin. (To stay a wee little bit on topic.)
Yeah, to be honest this whole situation is just plain baffling. It really doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense. I think this is because things are not exactly as they seem. Same as with the pandemic. Occam's razor applies here. |
|
|
|
The "community" decided to add the tail emission after Monero had been launched. It was, in fact, an argument amongst the community. I was on the side of NOT adding it. Not only do I not think it is neccesary to sustain the coin's security, but changing the economics in mid stream was a HUGE BLOW to the decentralization argument for the project. You realize how bad that sounds, right? Humans changing the economics of an asset, just by their own will. This isn't a matter of consensus. I consider it one of the lowest points in the history of the project. But I am in the minority on that score, I think. And I think the loss of credibility that move installed in the record will come back to bite us on the ass again and again. But I also think the project is important enough to survive it. Then again, maybe I am wrong. Hopefully about the former bit... On ANOTHER topic... I have been really enjoying SOLO MINING via p2pool. If I am not mistaken this utilizes a side chain to basically enable a solo mining pool. Here are my recent payouts! (Aside from the 2 consolodation fees, as well as that opne large transfer.) Perhaps I should be careful showing the whole world how much Monero I hold???  |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is where you store wealth, and Monero can be where transactions on the street take place... You see, there's a lack of confidence of what's what. You say Bitcoin is where people will store wealth, but Monero is where the daily transactions will take place. I find this oxymoron. Bitcoin isn't an object. You don't store value by the assumption that one will use it in the future for anything different than transacting with it. It's not gold that can be used in technology, jewelry etc.; the only purpose of Bitcoin is to use it as a medium of exchange and people HODL it so that they can either use it in the future to buy things or trade it with another person who wants it to buy things. The value of Bitcoin comes solely from this phenomenon. Now if everyone preferred Monero over Bitcoin, it wouldn't make sense to use it as a store of value. AND it is not insignificant that it does have perpetual inflation. I personally find it insignificant. In a way, it reveals you that the founder didn't believe it will reach a large transaction volume, so that miners could be content from the fees. It gives me the impression that the security needed to somehow be arranged, but it couldn't unless the miners enjoyed this perpetual inflation. Your history is off. The "founder" built XMR with a hard cap. In fact we are ALMOST to the end of that original emission schedule. The "community" decided to add the tail emission after Monero had been launched. It was, in fact, an argument amongst the community. I was on the side of NOT adding it. Not only do I not think it is neccesary to sustain the coin's security, but changing the economics in mid stream was a HUGE BLOW to the decentralization argument for the project. But here we are in spite of that. I also see the reasoning why those on the other side supported the emission. In a way it is a tacit admission that Monero may never "flip" Bitcoin, as I do not think it would be possible for very many cryptocurrencies to be able to survive a zero emission state. Some argue even Bitcoin will not. I disagree. The fees on the Bitcoin blockchain will support it's mining, in my opinion, as it will continue to be fairly expensive to transact on BTC. But other SHA2 blockchains will either fade to nearly nothing or be attacked out of existence. You description of Bitcoin is a value store made out of 100% monetary premium is accurate. One cannot really OWN a 256bit number either. We simply rely on the fact that there are so many of them that a randomly chosen one is practically un-findable. So yes. The only thing one would ever do with Bitcoin is to store and transmit value. Satoshi's choice to hard cap the supply is a perfect decision for a value store. Period. Any other choice would diminish the efficacy of Bitcoin to store value. Though there ARE arguments FOR inflation. The argument for inflation is to support monetary velocity. Elon Musk has irritated maxis by frequently by saying “Even though it was created as a silly joke, dogecoin is better suited for transactions.”. I can only see two reasons he would say this: 1. He is a scammer or a fool. He has realized he can make money moving the price of Doge around. Or he just likes it because it is silly and "shouldn't" be successful. I think the latter is more likely than the former. Because as smart as he may be, he loves base and absurd humor. He already has so much money what could he gain playing with DOGE? 2. He believes Doge's inflation is better for a transactional currency. If a currency is constantly inflating, then it is also constantly becoming worth less. In the extreme, as we will be seeing with the US dollar soon, but has been proven out in the Bolivar, etc people will take wheelbarrows of currency to buy things they do not need on a TUES simply because on WED they will get less. So inflation supports spending instead of holding. Therefore "Doge is better than Bitcoin as a transactional currency". I personally think #2 is the main reason Musk says this. But the earth has never seen a mathematically perfect value store in it's whole history until Bitcoin. So, if given the choice of holding value in BTC vs DOGE... well, the price tells that story already. And this goes for Monero as well. In fact the market sees the dog coin is more than FIVE times more valuable than Monero. ^^That, of course is foolishness, and one way or the other I should expect Monero will eventually flip Doge in market cap. Monero is closer to Bitcoin in it's emission than Doge in SPITE of the fact it, like the dog coin, has an "infinite supply". Because it will have less than Bitcoin's 21mm coins for 15 years after the original subsidy is gone. And it will take another 15 years to add 2.5 million coins to the total. This is a VERY small inflation rate. In fact when the community was arguing through this decision many felt 432 Monero each day forever would not be enough as it would not even cover lost coins. Anyway... There is a brief history and reasoning for the infamous Monero "tail emission". Do with it as you will. |
|
|
|
But a certain number of these hundreds of millions who are now seeing Bitcoin for what it is are going to realize why Monero matters. And yet, too few use Bitcoin to gain privacy. The main utility comes from the fact that it's hard cash. I'm using Bitcoin to avoid having a third party telling me what to do; 'cause it's borderless; 'cause it's transparent; I don't have to trust a financial institution, which is provably faulty; human behavior is faulty when they gain too much power. We, don't like that. We've re-invented money, decentralized. There's another thing that should bother you: Scarcity. I'm not talking about the bullshit they say about the infinite XMR. I'm referring to digital scarcity. Look around you, people like things that are scarce. The paradox of crypto is that the coins are scarce, but the currencies are abundant. There's no second best in terms of scarcity. I comprehend that Monero, as a whole, offers better privacy than Bitcoin. But, there are other factors to count as well for your assertion/prediction to turn out true. This is true. And Monero is post prime mover for scarcity, AND it is not insignificant that it does have perpetual inflation. Our camp (Monero folks) has recently turned up the volume on the (BCASH LIKE) "Number Go Up" = BAD narrative. Yet that is Bitcoin's raison d'etre. The magic sauce. And the chain HAS to be completely visible to get the maximum benefit. Monero really offers Bitcoin a way to firewall the privacy problem into a separate camp. You know... I always sort of thought the whole Litecoin is silver to Bitcoin's gold marketing slogan to be such polished bullshit. But to tell the truth Monero actually fits that bill. Bitcoin is where you store wealth, and Monero can be where transactions on the street take place... Unless something like CT on Liquid ends up stealing XMRs mojo. Because there is an advantage to a pegged asset. But I think having it completely fire walled into XMR is something. The only weak spot I see is when you do an Atomic swap with bitcoin, how do you deal with the taint? So I see bitcoin as a perfectly viable store of value with the built in NGU tech and Monero as the transactional coin of choice that hopefully sidechains will develop on for all the silly eth type shit.
|
|
|
|
The absolute level of backwards craziness the universe has risen to...  |
|
|
|
I imagine the use of TOR can create some of this number. But still cool. |
|
|
|
\That is effing great. Lol. Would be upgrade if person removed articles from grammar. "I am looking for obituary".  Then use "Boris" voice for reading.  |
|
|
|
Fret ye not because of this pullback...  |
|
|
|
Last phrase: "Bitcoin has very defined rules, but no rulers."Go girl! Yeah. She NAILS it in that 1 minute. A PERFECT run. Every word. Impressive. |
|
|
|
Pump for ants already exhausted.
Observed 45,250, but now 44,250 as I type here.
I am not hardwired to 1,000 swings yet.
One day 10k hourly swings will be pretty dull.
You know... such an interesting point We can see intraday swings that are equal to an ounce of gold. Lol this must chap Peter Schiff's ass super bad. I honestly do not think we are super far from 10k candles. But I am a perma-bull, I guess. Hopefully we keep taking runs at over 45. I think it is natural to run into some resistance at this level. There was a lot of action between 45 and 49 or so... I feel like that's the range we have to cut through. I wonder how long it takes (Oops.. cut the prices off on my silly pic. But that line is ~47k.)  |
|
|
|
 At a certain point near here we bust loose, I think! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
