I honestly think that neither of these chains (eth or xrp) have any chance without radical L1 code rewriting. And i am not sure if ANY of the existing coins fit to the legal framework.
L2 solutions for them seem like a duct tape solution, and i am way out of my depth by the legal complexity of the whole issue, but what i am aware is that both chains lack the level of privacy that GDPR would need. And AML laws alone are complex for any permissionless transactions without L1 build in KYC.
What ever platform they choose in the end, it will most likely look very different from the current cryptos out there. And i would be surprised if incentives for protecting the chain (coins) would have cheap and fast transactions. Protecting privacy, integrity, and stability of chain worth trillions of dollars will cost some serious money.
I am also fairly certain that they won't use centralized system in the end, as no country out there would trust that one centralized entity enough.
I've seen stablecoins with a "blacklist" feature "baked" into the code. If they can do that, it'll be easy enough to make a regulatory-compliant digital currency on a public blockchain network. The real problem would be obfuscating sensitive transactions. Especially on transparent ledgers such as Ethereum and XRP. ZKPs (Zero Knowledge Proofs) provide the solution to this, but I doubt the XRP developer team are going to integrate it. It makes more sense to develop a private blockchain network where central banks like the FED and ECB have full control over it. Existing stablecoins could be "bridged" to such chain if governments want to. Whenever Ripple's stablecoin, Tether's USDT, or Circle's USDC will be the next US Digital Dollar, you can be certain that paper money's days are coming to an end. The world will be fully digitized, giving governments more control over our lives. We won't truly own anything. I sure hope BTC stays alive by the time CBDCs rule the world. Otherwise, it will be the end of privacy and freedom for good.  |
|
|
|
After what SEC write to Uniswap founder about their protocols and their offense, I think I now understand why some of the founders of platforms that are decentralized always goes anonymous and don't want to be known by the public, this is some of the reason I thought so too. The regulations are quite not friendly again, now imagine if someone is out there trying to develop something much better than Uniswap using the exchange as a prototype or as a sample for future design since it's open source. To be honest, we can't have decentralization as we want, when government smells some little things they don't like or seeing that a place is becoming bigger beyond their control, they will put that place in other with their tight regulations and also makes sure the are been press charge. It's even like SEC loves places that involves money and yet you wouldn't see where the money they collected goes to, all they understand is sue and sue but can't build anything better for people. Exactly. Developers must stay anonymous if they really want to protect decentralization + censorship-resistance. The problem is that most investors won't trust a project without publicly-known developers. Especially VCs and institutional investors. They'll believe it's a scam. It's this reason why most crypto projects reveal the true identities of their creator. This is bad because it makes it easier for governments to prosecute developers when they find something they don't like (like what happened with the Tornado.Cash mixer). We have Ethereum's Vitalik Buterin, Cardano's Charles Hoskinson, Polkadot's Gavin Wood, etc. Only a small portion of crypto projects were developed by an anonymous person (or a group of people). Bitcoin's founder is unknown, but most developers from the Bitcoin Core project are known to the public. I guess we'll never be able to experience true censorship-resistance. As I've stated before, decentralized marketplaces will remain a niche to those who actually care about their privacy or want to circumvent government restrictions. The majority will keep using centralized marketplaces (eBay, Amazon) out of convenience. At least, we have a choice.  |
|
|
|
I'm glad LN failed. It was an attempt for one huge, bank-funded company to control Bitcoin.
Now everyone just uses other coins that have expanded the block size for day to day transactions.
Don't get your hopes too high. Especially when "Wall Street" is in the game. Giants like BlackRock and Fidelity might push the adoption of LN payments soon. They will only look for what's best for them (lower fees, near-instant transactions at the cost of centralization), instead of what's best for the people (decentralization, self-custody). I've read somewhere that the Bitcoin Core project is being funded by banks. I wouldn't be surprised if that turns out to be the case with the LN in the future. The "off-chain scaling solution" may be facing issues in terms of user experience and liquidity, but it will get "better" in the long run. Money is what makes the world go round, after all. So if the aformentioned entities pour money into the LN, developers will be well-funded to fix issues and improve the network. I sure hope BTC stays decentralized and censorship-resistant forever. Else, it was good 'til it lasted.  |
|
|
|
Campaign paid.
Received. Thank you! |
|
|
|
Perhaps a lot of people missed the opportunity of investing in bitcoin while it was at it's early stage and thus altcoins as the name implies are there to act as bitcoin in the aspect of making your the expected profit which you would have gotten if you invested in bitcoin from the beginning.
Bitcoin has some flaws and altcoins are here to cover up for this flaws which it has, as Ethereum for example is an alternative coin that was coined as a result of the flaw of bitcoin having limited supply which is 21million and now Ethereum trying to cover for bitcoin was created in a manner that if doesn't have a limited supply, what it's saying essence is that the more the population of ethereum adopters the likely they are to realise a new number in other to reach us all.
Another example of importance is when the network is congested altcoins are used for payment as a result so it does count.
I'm curious as to which flaws does Bitcoin have? If you mean scaling issues, that's no longer a problem thanks to the inception of L2 networks (like the Lightning Network) and sidechains. And the transparency of the Bitcoin Blockchain is more of a feature than a bug. It helps us detect criminal activities on-chain, which is not possible on privacy-focused Blockchains. Corruption can't happen on a transparent ledger anyone can audit. Altcoins are only there to help test out new features before they're launched on the main Bitcoin Blockchain. They're also an avenue for investors to make money if they get in early. Those who missed the "Bitcoin train", now see an opportunity in altcoins to achieve financial independence. The term "altcoin" will continue to be used as long as we have cryptocurrencies that are distinct from Bitcoin. Some projects will die, while others will last a lifetime. Just spend your money wisely, and there should be nothing to worry about. |
|
|
|
Syscoin still alive. that's cool. BitBay used to be popular in the forum and they boast their decentralized marketplace too but now i can see their coin is not in any market anymore. i still can see the marketplace is alive though only the barter and p2p that has products on it.
there's never something like this with a huge community using the marketplace. if there is a community that might make a decentralized marketplace work, it is probably doge community.
That's the problem. Projects with a promising vision often fail due to lack of community support. The crypto industry these days is focused on hype instead of utility. I guess decentralized marketplaces will remain a niche for the tech/privacy inclined. In countries where authoritarianism restricts freedom, decentralized marketplaces does wonders. From what I've seen, most of the decentralized marketplaces have their own software/network protocol. I haven't seen a marketplace based on smart contracts yet. Would you imagine developers doing something like this? If they launch a decentralized marketplace on the Ethereum blockchain, it will be truly-unstoppable. Of course, governments will sanction it (especially the US government). But that won't be the end of everything. The same way Tornado.Cash survived (despite the sanctions), the same way will happen with a decentralized marketplace based on smart contracts. I sure hope we don't see a Silk Road 4.0 in the future. |
|
|
|
Apart from BSV which was an exception, we frequently notice altcoins like Litecoin and Monero being used more as a currency than Bitcoin. Check out this post from stompix: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5478905.msg63402003#msg63402003. To me the answer is crystal clear. People don't care about decentralization and censorship resistance that much for their financial transactions. They care about those properties when we're talking about the best asset there is. Bitcoin proponents view bitcoin more as an asset than a currency, and that's why it is not worth the risk to implement significant changes. It's that simple, yet we're making it seem so complicated somehow. Of course. LTC and XMR are often viewed by many as currencies. NOT a long-term investment or store of value. I guess their total supply has something to do with this. Bitcoin's limited supply and deflationary mechanism has led the majority to use it more as a Gold alternative than anything else. There's nothing we can do to change this, especially when "Wall Street" is involved. Only a small portion of people will use BTC as a currency for day-to-day payments. Given that the majority is "hodling" BTC, the Lightning Network and other subnetworks/sidechains will remain a niche for the tech enthusiast. At least, people have a choice. Who knows where on-chain fees will be in the future?  |
|
|
|
The BCH and LTC futures were launched successfully on April 1 and are already happily trading. I wondered of course what had happened to the DOGE futures and if they had to drop them. But fortunately Coinbase yesterday issued an official statement, clarifying that the Dogecoin futures are coming "later this month". They also announced that the contract will be sized 5000 DOGE (around $800), which is in the same order of magnitude than the LTC and BCH contracts (5 LTC -> ~$500, 1 BCH -> ~$600). Perhaps they wanted to avoid to launch DOGE futures on April 1 to avoid the association with a "prank"? On the other hand, as I mentioned before, for Doge it's the first financial product (I believe not only in the US but worldwide, I've researched a bit and in the German subforum I've made a list of those I found) outside of top altcoin basket products, so perhaps there's more preparation work to do. Exciting times ahead for Dogecoin and the "meme" coins industry. If Coinbase launched futures trading, does this mean Dogecoin will get its own spot ETF in the future? Sounds crazy, but I've learned that anything's possible in crypto land. If DOGE gets a spot ETF, then it would be treated as a serious currency/investment than a joke. I can imagine prices going all the way to the moon afterwards. It seems like the opening of futures trading had a positive impact over BCH and LTC's market prices lately. Especially BCH which went from around $200 to nearly $700 per coin. Who knows if current DOGE holders are about to get rich soon? |
|
|
|
Egypt receives billions a year in funding via the dollar, I know they do price fixing and generally struggle to balance the economy with stability but I seriously doubt a regime so closely related to dollars would be the first to be stepping away in any significant way.
I'd like to think no FIAT will take over from Dollar not to the extent we have it now. This should be the peak of reliance on political debt monetized promissory notes, the high tide mark of scummy currency that impoverishes the hard working common people. I'd like to think that but I dont know its indicated right now just people hoping saying it has to fall over. Any big change at this point would be like an earthquake in its disruption and a change absent of any smoothness I think.
Exactly. It's going to take ages before the world completely abandons the USD. Despite signs that the currency is weakening, other currencies are faring worse. Not even BRICS has been able to create an alternative currency that would compete against the US Dollar. The "de-dollarization" process doesn't happen overnight. Slowly but surely, the USD will lose traction until another currency takes its place as the world's reserve currency. There are theories as to which will be the USD's replacement in the future. I'd be surprised if it happens to be Bitcoin, especially when people are losing faith on central banks and the government. El Salvador already declared BTC as legal tender, while Argentina's president Javier Milei proposed to shut down the central bank and use Bitcoin. Is this a sign that Fiat currencies like the USD and EUR will die soon? |
|
|
|
You think people will switch from fiat to stablecoins? No chance for citizens of countries that use "healthy" currencies like the U.S dollar, Pounds, etc. Prolly people from third world countries who have shit currencies that is greatly affected by inflation and hyper inflation, they might decide to use USDT that is pegged to the U.S dollar.
That being said, USDT is very risky, it is centralized just like fiat currencies, but the institution that issues it is far less trusted than central banks that print fiat currencies. Stablecoins could be depegged and people who hodl it can lose their money in the twinkle of an eye, but fiat currencies stored in the bank is at least insured up to a certain amount.
Exactly. The risks of holding stablecoins are much higher than simply holding Fiat. Stablecoins are only convenient for people living in countries with a high inflation rate. The rest won't have any need to use a stablecoin, unless they want to get higher interest rates with their savings. "De-Fi" provide attractive rates for stablecoin deposits not found anywhere else. You'll have to decide what works best for you. What matters is that you protect yourself against the volatile nature of the crypto market. As long as you win more than what you lose, there should be nothing to worry about. |
|
|
|
That was one perfectly fine possibility (the one that arguably made more sense). Unfortunately, the IRS finally released the rules it decided to make up. According to these, you must pay tax at the "fair market value" of the rewards at the time you gain control of them (i.e., are able to sell).
In retrospect, this makes sense in terms for slowing down crypto adoption: If you stake, you're forced to go into cash at some point. No longer can you transact purely in crypto. In terms of maximizing the IRS's gains, it makes less sense, at least if you expect crypto to behave the same ways as since the beginning in 2009.
We can't stop people from selling their crypto to Fiat. After all, the majority wants to make money. Holding crypto without selling is something that only a true believer would do. If you don't sell, there's no reason for the government to collect taxes from you. However, you'll be tempted to sell when you need the money to buy things you can't spend your crypto on. That's when you need to pay your taxes. I have no problem with crypto taxation as long as it's done fairly. At least, the US doesn't charge as much taxes as India does.  |
|
|
|
Well I do think there is so many meme coins now. That there is good chance that most of them will turn into nothing but shitcoins. But I am interested when a major token does a meme coin. Solana meme coins are big interest for people and new meme coin called Slothana. And there is some people already who is making millions trading it. https://crypto.news/traders-think-slothana-could-be-the-next-big-solana-meme-coin/It's insane. People are wasting money into worthless tokens that are only driven by hype. What real use cases does a "meme" coin provide? Nothing. It seems like Solana will become the #1 chain for this kind of garbage. It's the only thing that's been "pumping" SOL's market price (besides the sale of the Saga smartphone). I wonder how low will Solana go once the "meme" coins hype comes to an end? Instead of focusing on "meme" coins, people should pay more attention to serious cryptocurrency projects. I'm talking about Bitcoin, Ethereum, and the likes. You're more likely to build generational wealth with BTC and ETH, than any of the "meme" coins listed across mainstream crypto exchanges. Considering that "meme" coins are a passing trend, expect 99% of them to die in the future. Only Dogecoin will survive because it's the oldest "meme" coin in existence. Crypto land behaves in many strange and bizarre ways, so expect the unexpected. |
|
|
|
The main difference is that sidechains always rely on a certain third party, while LN can be custodial. I'll repeat what I said during high fees in 2017: I don't care how Bitcoin scales, as long as it does it.
Even if Bitcoin turns centralized in the long run? Scaling should be done in a responsible manner to help prevent BTC losing its core aspects of decentralization and censorship-resistance. Why do you think chains with a big block size (BCH and BSV) didn't succeed? Because they chose to sacrifice decentralization in favor of high performance and cost-efficiency. Layer-2 networks like the Lightning Network are a much safer bet. Even though the LN is flawed by design, it's a temporary solution meant to scale BTC without driving it away from its decentralized principles. If the LN shuts down or gets compromised, the main BTC blockchain will still be running as usual. Developers need to get their act together by focusing on fixing the LN's issues to make it a reliable scaling solution for all. Improving UX (user experience) is the first thing they need to do. At least, we have plenty of options to choose from. If you're in a hurry and want to save money, why not use an altcoin ("shitcoin") instead? |
|
|
|
I don't think Ripple's stablecoin will become the US CBDC because Ripple is not the FED. CBDC is money issued and managed by the central bank, not by private organizations like Ripple or Tether, so we can rest assured that Ripple will not create CBDC for adoption in the near future. Ripple's stablecoin will likely compete with USDT and USDC, although I'm not sure about this, we don't have much information to make a judgment.
However, I wouldn't be surprised if the future US CBDC is deployed on the Ripple network. Ripple's technology is really good, their partner network is very large and could become an environment for the FED to experiment or deploy CBDC. This is also just a possibility, the bigger and better possibility is that CBDC will be deployed on a public, decentralized and secure blockchain - Ethereum.
Of course not. But the FED can make a partnership with Ripple to make its own CBDC. Ripple can manage network operations (nodes, consensus, etc), while monetary policy will be in the hands of the FED. A much easier route would be to declare any of the popular USD-backed stablecoins as the official US Digital Dollar. It could be Ripple's new stablecoin, Tether's USDT, Circle's USDC, or even PayPal's PYUSD. Given how popular crypto/Blockchain tech has become, I think this will happen a lot faster than we've previously imagined. I'm just speculating here. I don't think the FED will use a public blockchain network because that would reveal all of its activities on-chain (transparency). A privately-owned chain, or a chain with privacy features would be most suitable for the new CBDC. The future can't be predicted, so we can only hope for the best. |
|
|
|
stop obsessing about LN prospects/plans of future
LN cant succeed due to failures of LN
.. now start thinking about other subnetworks that could do other tasks below bitcoin.. new subnetworks made from scratch that actually offer proper niche services(more securely/les flawed)..
dont start talking about how bitcoin is viewed and how it doesnt succeed where ethereum did.. instead see bitcoin has potential for financial utility of bitcoin and niche services for subnetworks.. dont get stuck in the bitcoin or LN as only option where bitcoin becomes junk and only LN becomes financial.. those are not the only options going forward.
there doesnt need to be one solo subnetwork everyone needs to move to and avoid bitcoin mainnet use..
By "subnetworks" do you mean "sidechains"? If that's the case, then yes, they're a much safer and reliable option than the LN. Bitcoin's use cases can be expanded far from the areas of finance. I've seen sidechains providing smart contracts functionality, as well as, decentralized storage capabilities. Unfortunately, these chains aren't as widely-recognized as the LN. The latter has strong marketing from crypto companies, businesses, and exchanges alike. Although adoption for the LN is still low, it's certainly greater than sidechains. The solution to the high fee problem is already there. What's challenging is making people use alternative solutions to have a better experience with Bitcoin. With plenty of altcoins to choose from, why focus on scaling Bitcoin, anyways? |
|
|
|
Absolutely, any stable coin that is centralized can lost its value at any time and I only knew one stable coin which is DAI backed by smart contracts of ethereum but as we know people prefer the tokens with liquidity so they just go with USDT even if there is risk of losing their money.
Wasn't DAI collaterized by crypto assets (particularly ETH)? If it's only backed by smart contracts, then it should be called an "algorithmic stablecoin" instead. TRON's USDD is one of them. But I get what you mean. Decentralized stablecoins like DAI and USDJ are a much better choice because they lack a central authority/operator. This means the risk of loss is much lower than centralized counterparts. In the case of DAI, the stablecoin is governed by MakerDAO (a Decentralized Autonomous Organization). MKR holders can influence the future direction of the stablecoin. If USDT and USDC were like that, things would've been better by now. At least we have a choice. Who knows what would be the future of the stablecoins industry? |
|
|
|
From starters, i am sure you know that stablecoins aren't same as CBDC. It's not pegged to fiat money, it is fiat money. And since Ripple is already having legal fights, i don't see why that platform would be even considered for something like this. Platform for CBDC's needs to meet bunch of regulatory requirements for it, and i am not sure if a consensus for those conditions even exists yet. But Ripple wasn't build for this. Platform for CBDC needs to be build around regulations. Ripple lacks ton of key issues. Proof for that is that privacy for it was thought later on. And then there would need to be build in KYC and reversable transactions. EU has already one in-depth analysis for CBDS's legal framework as required by ECON commitee, and i don't see how ripple fits into this. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2023/741518/IPOL_IDA(2023)714518_EN.pdfOf course. I'm aware of the differences between stablecoins and CBDCs. What I meant was central banks (in this case, the FED) making a partnership with a crypto company to launch the new CBDC. The US could hire Ripple, Circle, or even Tether for the creation of the new "Digital Dollar". Or they can use an existing stablecoin and officially declare it as the digital USD. I believe Ripple has a better chance for this, because it has its own blockchain network (or should I say "Distributed Ledger"). Tether doesn't have its own Blockchain, while its USDT stablecoin lives across multiple public blockchain networks. PayPal has its own stablecoin (PYUSD), but it's far behind giants such as USDT and USDC. I wonder how successful Ripple's new stablecoin will be? |
|
|
|
The things i do like when dealing with centralized casinos..
1. Tons of coins that could be used
2. You could make some possible fiat deposits(on some)
3. Instantaneous results and not that hash types kind of betting or some sort
4. Different bonuses and perks
5. Have active supports
6. Different games variations and types
Its centralized but it is really that something being outweighed with those benefits or factors on which you could really be able to deal off with it.
Although it would really be that a matter of choice of a certain gambling. You could be always have the choice.
Speaking of Fiat deposits, I've always wondered why decentralized gambling dApps don't accept stablecoins tied to the value of USD. I think it's because developers fear strict government regulations, and don't want to be charged for encouraging money laundering and/or tax evasion. After all, stablecoin transactions are KYC-free (if I'm right). USDT and USDC would've been great options for decentralized gambling. For the paranoid, DAI is even better because of its truly-decentralized design. While some decentralized casinos struggle with high network fees and a terrible user experience, L2 chains could be the solution to all of their problems. Would you imagine betting at the speed and cost-efficiency of a traditional centralized casino without the added risk? This could be the future of the gambling industry. No matter how far decentralized casinos go, they will never get to replace their centralized counterparts. I'm fine with that as long as gamblers have a choice. |
|
|
|
Nothing stops the industry from being utility based and at the same time a speculative one. In fact, from all indications this industry has been more of a speculative one than utilitarian if we must follow facts as they're. Investors are coming into this space because of what ROI their capital will afford them within a specified or expected time range. Anyone who tells you they're only in this industry purely for its utility and not for the profit isn't being truthful.
And developers seem to be "going on with the flow". They aren't focused on the quality aspect of their project as they've used to do in the past. I remember the early days was all about innovation mainly in the privacy and smart contracts area. Nowadays, it's all about worthless "meme" coins and NFTs with no purpose in life. The vast majority of these coins live within existing Blockchain networks. It's even worse these days because anyone can create a token without any coding knowledge whatsoever. This added convenience is what has made a lot of scams possible. I sure hope we get to see independent Blockchains focused on utility and quality than anything else. Maybe with "Wall Street" joining the game, developers will start taking things more seriously? It's a crazy world we're living these days, so expect the unexpected. |
|
|
|
The definition of stablecoin is, that USD or any other fiat backs it.
This is free market, everyone can launch their own project whether it'd value depends on its demand and supply or like USDT, its value is pegged to USD but we never know the creator actually has reserves for the printed tokens or if they just do it out of thin air that's why it's not suitable for holding and people mainly uses it for trading.
The real problem are algorithmic stablecoins. They're not backed by anything. You can lose it all in an instant if they fail to hold the peg against the USD. This is what happened with Terra/LUNA's UST stablecoin. USD-backed stablecoins are a much safer bet. But there's also the risk of losing it all if the stablecoin issuer fails to match the supply with its USD reserves. USDT is one of those stablecoins with a shady history. Who says it won't lose its peg in the future? For what I know, nothing lasts forever. I'd suggest you diversify your investment to minimize risks as much as possible. You'll thank me later. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
