Bit coin has no intrinsic value. It's only valuable right now because people are willing to pay fiat for it. If fiat goes to 0, so will bit coin.
So, if fiat collapses, then what will be used to pay for a gun? According to you, it couldn't be precious metals because they are also only valuable right now because people are willing to pay fiat for them. Also, the Venezuelan bolívar has basically gone to 0, but the value of a bitcoin in Venezuela has not gone to 0. So, how do you know that if fiat goes to 0, so will bitcoin? |
|
|
|
|
I'm not an expert, but I think that a bitcoin mining company is much like any other commodity producer and probably should be structured similarly. A big difference might be that the cost of capital vs. revenue works differently.
|
|
|
|
|
Volatility and "tops" are short-term. Hodling is long-term. I think that the bitcoins you hold now with be worth more in the future regardless of tops and volatility.
To your point, I believe that Bitcoin is heading into another bubble. Who knows where it will land on the other side, but I guarantee that there will be a lot of tears.
|
|
|
|
|
"Buy low, sell high" is not a strategy. It is a requirement for making a profit.
If someone answers the question, "how do you make money?" with "buy low, sell high.", they are making a joke and not telling you their strategy.
|
|
|
|
Okay, so what will bit coin be worth when fiat is worthless?
Can any coiner honestly answer how your shitcoin has value if the fiat money it's valued on is worthless?
It's hilarious because no bit coiner can ever answer this question.
I can answer that question. The answer is that you are confused. The value of a bitcoin is measured by fiat. It is not based on fiat. If fiat collapses, what will the value of a gun be? According to you, a gun would be worthless because "the fiat money it's valued on is worthless". But it is not. Bitcoin is the same as the gun. One of the main features of Bitcoin is that it is a currency whose value is independent of other currencies. |
|
|
|
1. That life could even come from the DNA pattern is way more complex than the life itself. Or haven't you looked at the complexity?
Crystals might appear to self-organize, but they simply operate by cause and effect, like everything else. Or do you have proof that they don't?
So then you agree that your statement that complexity always produces less complexity is false. 2. The water cycle is a machine. There are two categories of machines, those we know the maker of, and those we don't know the maker of. There never has been any machine made that didn't have a maker, or do you have proof of no maker rather than an unknown maker?
You can't claim that every machine has a maker because you don't know that the water cycle has a maker. Space is an elastic solid of a different kind than the kind of solid that we normally consider as solid.
That's just nonsense. What kind of solid is it? What properties does it have that make it a solid? ...so space is a substance that makes itself available to energy waves (electromagnetic waves) so that they can be propagated. Saying it this way is even simpler than Haramein explains it.
The existence of ether was disproved a long time ago. |
|
|
|
|
He has the same right to troll as everyone else.
|
|
|
|
|
I hate to burst your bubbles, but ...
Moving bitcoins is not the same as buying bitcoins, even if they are moved from an exchange.
Those bitcoins were already bought at some time in the past. Tesla used Coinbase to buy their bitcoins, so perhaps those were some of the bitcoins that Tesla bought. Or perhaps it was somebody that has keep them on Coinbase for years.
|
|
|
|
1. It's proven in the high numbers of examples where complexity always produces something of equal or less complexity. You might suggest that there are a bunch of idiot people who produce offspring of the highest IQ order. However, the programming for such was already in their genes. In other words, high complexity produced low complexity with the ability to produce higher complexity than itself. But in general, there is no high complexity found that is higher than the complexity that preceded it. Such is part of entropy, which at its base, is reduction of complexity. The idea of throwing a handful of sand into the air to produce complexity is a stupid idea. Rather, as the videos suggest, vibrations were cause to exist in the thing we call empty space, so that complexity was formed. Big Bang was a stab at trying to fathom something way too complex to fathom. Big Bang had no way to take the complexity of thought and all the fundamentals of the subconscious which uphold thought, into account... and a lot of other things, as well. Complexity alone suggests God. When it is combined with cause and effect and entropy, nothing could exist without God. 2. The water cycle has a maker because it is a machine. We simply don't clearly recognize who or where that maker is. Simply because we are too ignorant to find the maker, doesn't mean the cycle doesn't have a maker. Consider the Antikythera mechanism https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2008/dec/11/antikythera-first-computer. Just because we don't know who made it, doesn't mean it popped into existence without a maker. In fact, we don't even know which nation it sprang from for sure. However, it uses the machines of nature in its design and operation. And it is made of the stuff of nature, a machine of machines. We don't know of any machine that factually exists without having had a maker. 3. Nobody can imagine mass production without ever producing more than one of the same thing. While that part of the points wasn't meant to prove God, it certainly shows us a strange method for making similar things in great number, with everything being different although similar. What could do this? the 3 major religions of the world say that there is one God, and that God is one. It seems He has left the idea of "oneness" throughout all of nature, simply to point to Himself as existing. The things that Nassim Haramein says are foundational. It's not that he is simply telling bedtime stories or something. The things he explains are things of science, things that science has found, that seem to go against possibly the foundations of things that Einstein said. Einstein suggested that space is empty. But there are too many scientific observations that show that space is essentially an elastic solid, made of moving vibrations as Haramein said. That's why Einstein's theories are still theories after nearly a hundred years. There are too many things of science against them. 1. It is not proven that complexity always produces something of equal or less complexity. For example, crystals self-organize from gas or liquid. Also, the life that comes from DNA is much more complex than the DNA itself. 2. I agree that it was wrong to say that the water cycle has no maker, but it is equally wrong to say that the water cycle has a maker. And, since you don't know that the water cycle has a maker, you can't say that every machine has a maker. Your premise is flawed and so your proof is invalid. Space is not an elastic solid made of moving vibrations. That is nonsense. Nassim Haramein explains nothing. He speaks only in metaphors, and states nothing that is actually real. Nothing he says can be shown to be true or false because everything he says is a metaphor. It is useless nonsense. |
|
|
|
No one can create more than 21 million bitcoins but if you are considering about derivatives, people might buy or sell more representatives of bitcoin. The amount of derivative bitcoin will be higher than 21 million. However, they are not real bitcoin. They are simply credited figures to accounts, not real bitcoin.
That may be a misconception, depending on what you mean by "real". If you deposit bitcoins into your Coinbase account, are the bitcoins in your account "real"? If so, then if those bitcoins are then lent out, are those bitcoins "real"? The issue is that both effectively appear to be real bitcoins. |
|
|
|
|
When you switch the wallet.dat, you must do a rescan, although it might do that for you automatically. The rescan finds all transactions affecting the addresses in your wallet, this is necessary so that the wallet can display the transactions and balance correctly.
The problem with a pruned node in this case is that only recent transactions are stored, so the rescan will not be able to find earlier transactions.
|
|
|
|
|
Electrum has two seed formats: BIP-39 and a proprietary format (as well as a legacy format). Make sure you are selecting the right one.
Electrum also gives you the choice of 3 derivation paths. Make sure you are selecting the correct one.
If your seed has an associated passphrase, but you don't use it or get it wrong, you will get an empty wallet.
The symptom of any of these occurring is that the addresses in the wallet don't match the addresses that you expect.
|
|
|
|
Will a Bitcoin ETF allow ad hoc creation of btc?
Yes it will, but not directly. There are different measures of the money supply: Monetary base: amount of money printed by the central bank, plus bills and coins. The U.S. monetary base is currently $5.2 trillion M1: All the money in all the bank accounts. This is what people consider to be their money. The U.S. M1 is currently $7.1 trillion M2, M3, ...: time deposits, loans, ETFs, derivatives, etc. Now, here is what bitcoiners who believe in the only-21-million-bitcoins myth overlook: While the Bitcoin monetary base is (or will be) 21 million, the Bitcoin M1 will be much higher when banks, exchanges, and lenders lend out the bitcoins that they hold. |
|
|
|
It is hard for me to understand what the problem is because I have never given out an xpub. It looks like the money is there, so what is the problem? How is it inaccessible? can i send those ... to a kraken account or an exodus wallet or not ? ? ?[/color]
What if i send my BTC from that besh32 account in trezor to another p2sh wallet and vice versa ??
You should have no problem sending those bitcoins to any address of any type. and how to deal with those two different besh32 and p2sh BTC protocols ? ? ? ?
Most major wallets support bech32 addresses now, so you should use those since they result in lower fees. |
|
|
|
That's already happening. I am paying around 35% of my salary as tax, while some of my poor neighbors don't pay any tax at all. On the other hand, I am not eligible for any welfare handouts from the government, while the non-tax paying neighbors are automatically eligible. I hardly get anything in return for the taxes I pay. This is how the system works. And in the end, the welfare rats always cry that the rich are not helping them.
... Taxes are a little different. Taxes form budgets that provide social security and other "services" that the state provides, including you. ... Taxes are implemented as a distribution of wealth -- people with more are forced by threat of violence to give money to people with less. You can't deny it. You are trying to obscure that fact by showing how some people benefit from it and by saying that people get some of there taxes back in benefits. I give as much as I can to charities in order to keep it away from the government. If I am forced to give my money away, then at least I can decide where it goes by giving it to charities. |
|
|
|
There are two major scientific ways one can prove the existence of God. And there is a third that is almost unimaginable because we don't take it into consideration deeply.
1. When you combine entropy with cause-and-effect with complexity, and at the same time consider everything that we really know (not the theories), the answer is God, or nothing exists.
2. All of our machines come from the machines of the universe. To exist, our machines use parts of universe machines. Machines have makers... or do you have an example of a machine that doesn't have a maker.
3. 1 + 1 ≠ 2. Why not? Because there are no two things in the whole universe that are exactly the same. 1 + 1 always = 1 + 1.
- 1. The crux of that argument is as stated by you: "Whatever set cause and effect into place, to produce the complexity of life through essentially throwing a handful of sand into the air, must be extremely complex within itself."
Of course, that is an assumption and something that you have not proven. It is generally called the First Mover argument and it is attributed to Thomas Aquinas. The problem is that there is nothing to support that argument, nor is there anything that shows that the "first mover" is a god (assuming you don't define the word "god" to strictly mean "first mover"). The obvious rebuttal is that the First Mover argument requires an exception in the case of the cause of the god. - 2. Your premise false. Not all machines have makers. For example, the water cycle has all the characteristics of a machine, yet it has no maker. You can't counter that a god is the maker of the water cycle, because then you are begging the question --"God is the maker of the water cycle, therefore God exists."
Anyway, the best argument you can make here is "Every machine with a maker has a maker, therefore there must be an ultimate maker", which immediately shows its flaws.
Also, this is just another version of the First Mover argument, so everything in #1 also applies. - 3. That's because you are twisting the meaning of "+". Either way, a philosophical statement like that has nothing to do with the existence of a god.
Haramein's Quantum Revolution: Science of a UNIFIED Universe
I think this guy is trying to be the successor to the charlatan Deepak Chopra. The video makes so many statements that mean nothing. It constantly twists the meanings of words in order to pretend to make a point. |
|
|
|
What are the tax implications of selling a physical coin on here? Is it different whether you receive cash vs BTC?
Assuming you are in the U.S., it is not complicated. It is property so you report it as capital gains. The gain is the difference between the price you sold it for (in dollars at the time of the sale) and the price you bought it for (in dollars at the time of the purchase). For example, if you bought it for 1.05 BTC on 2012/01/03 (I think that was his price), you paid the equivalent of $6. If you sold it today for 1.1 BTC, you sold it for the equivalent of $57,200. You pay capital gains tax on a gain of $57,194. |
|
|
|
- Address: Bitcoins are sent to an address. An address is derived from its public key. It is not a public key or a wallet.
- Private Key: Used to control the bitcoins at an address. A private key is not a password or a seed.
- Public Key: A public key is used in a transaction and is rarely used directly by a person. A public key is derived from its private key. It is not an address.
- Wallet: A wallet contains and manages private keys and their associated addresses. A wallet is not an address. A wallet typically uses a seed to generate all of its private keys.
- Seed/Recovery Phrase: Used by a wallet to generate private keys and their associated addresses. A seed is not a passphrase or a private key. A seed is also known as a recovery phrase because all of a wallet's private keys and associated addresses are derived from its seed.
- Passphrase/password: A passphrase is used to encrypt a wallet, private key, or seed. A passphrase is not a private key or a seed. However, sometimes a seed will contain an extra word that is actually a passphrase.
Here are sets of terms that are frequently confused with each other: - Public key <==> Address
- Address <==> Wallet
- Private key <==> Seed <==> Passphrase
Terms that should be avoided because they are ambiguous or probably being used incorrectly: - Wallet address: A wallet typically does not have a single address associated with it.
- Public address: Use of this term typically indicates a confusion between the terms "address" and "public key". All addresses are public.
- Public Key: Typically this term is mistakenly used in place of "address".
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
