|
volatility is not the issue.
for years merchants accepted bitcoin because they used bitpay and coinbase that converted it to fiat at receipt so when a shopping cart showed $100.. the cart converted it to a bitcoin amount to display to customers and then the cart service gave the merchant $100, within a allotted time.. thus never a problem
the math example by avikz is wrong due to avikz showing a silly example where the seller waited until the price dropped before converting.
firstly
merchants don't wait
secondly
if your going to wait your not going to finally give in and sell on the worse day of the week, so that example is wrong.
funnily if the seller exchanged on day 3 - $14200 he would have been $178.60 UP..
but yea aviks selective picked an obscene scenario, to make an obscene point
the problem is not price volatility.. the problem is the cost to do the transaction (the tx fee)
also bitcoin is not good for real world brick and mortar merchants with checkout lines, where it takes 10mins+ to guarantee the payment is not reversible.
its like watching an old lady infront of you counting out pennies for 10 minutes, resulting in bad customer service and complaints by the other customers in the queue waiting
bitcoin had a very niche market for online products and services that needed to be delivered and as such allowed time for confirmation before dispatching products.
but it did not work well for small items of under $100 due to the fact that the TX fee was growing to a few dollars just to make a trade.
which could have been avoided with simple code in the form of a tx priority fee formula.. but instead devs just went ahead, lets fees spiral out of control to then advertise their banking2.0 second layer services.
|
|
|
|
I disagree. If you fully read the blog, you will see how Roger Ver is trying to trick the newbies and making them think that Bitcoin has split into Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Cash. Why call it "Bitcoin Core" in the first place? Is he trying to make them believe that Bitcoin Cash also has legitimate claim to the Bitcoin brand?
What a crafty little mole he is.
though bitcoin cash is not the chain that merchant tools follow right now and thus those wanting to spend bitcoin with merchants wont get the result that they want by moving bitcoin cash about.. i do have to say this segwit chain is no better either. merchants have dropped using segwits chain by the 10's of thousands of businesses.. but anyway, reading your quote.. are you trying to say that bitcoin core has a legitimate claim to the bitcoin brand. if so then you have failed the true understanding of bitcoin.. NO ONE should have claim to the brand. but if you want to defend that core own bitcoin and any other team is just counterfeit. then you have given decentralised control over to an organisation who pretend to be random people.. what if coinbase decided that segwit core was the code that is not anything like the legacy bitcoin ethos and thus merchant tool services like coinbase and bitpay took segwit off their listing.. what if there was a big mega bug that was a threat to both segwit and x2 block formations. and both sides had to downgrade back to legacy block formations and transaction formats. think beyond the team organisation defence and think about the utility and functionality.. because right now segwit: does not allow good flow of transactions onchain does not meet merchants needs of cheap transactions does not do what bitcoin was suppose to do that it did do in 2008-2014 right now the community is stuck at the(using social media analogy) myspace vs AOL members area.. it has not even got to the facebook era. in short w are still at the innovation stage, not the mainstream utility stage. please dont reply with a segwit/core standard scripted defence . and think only about the utility of bitcoin and what is best for utility.. not whats best to kiss dev teams ass. after all merchant tools like coinbase and bitpay could by utility and functionality decide that segwit is not the bitcoin advertised in 2008-2014 because merchants cant really use the segwit based chain due to many many reasons. and as such is affecting merchant tools services profitability. even right now 'chuck' lee is advertising the hell of making litecoin the merchant tool coin. and as such litecoin could become the facebook of crypto, leaving all bitcoin variants as being the myspace/aol stuff left just for history books think beyond the dev team battle. think beyond the kissing ass of core. think about whats most useful for the community P.S i dont care about the team game drama.. i dont even care about which coin is the highest price. to me its about which coin is most meeting the original bitcoin ethos of allowing people to transact without barriers of entry and can be best suited to help the unbanked and those just wanting to cross national borders unhindered by the banking system. |
|
|
|
|
bitcoin exchanges do NOT have 16m+ coins holding a resistance. most exchanges are trading in hundreds or thousands of dollars per order, NOT millions
thus the price is fragile and does not show real 'value'
thus easy to manipulate one/two popular sites and let the sheep on other exchanges react and follow blindly.
there will always be news. but how fragile the exchange resistance points are. are the real reason the price can move so much
|
|
|
|
|
my assets were at over 3000% in december, based on my very old original purchase price (yep i have been invested for a while)
and went down to about 1000% this week.
but still in profit holding.
i did buy more this month too seeing as it was the january sales period.. seeing as the prices were low id b stupid not to have
|
|
|
|
|
facebook is not stopping people making comments/posts about bitcoin
facebook is not stopping people making groups about bitcoin
facebook is stopping the 'suggested ads' that advertising the scammy investment schemes to avoid liability of suggesting that people shoul invest in the HYIP's and fake ICO schemes
|
|
|
|
|
bitcoin has not been bitcoin since 2014.
as soon as one team branded it and took ownership of it, saying no other team can be bitcoin. it no longer became bitcoin.
the point of bitcoin ethos is no one should own the decisioning power.
then from a technical bases, whichever codebase looks most like the bitcoin codebase prior to 2014 is the most closest to what bitcoin should be
and im afraid to say segwit codebase has far more lines of code that differ, far more rules that differ. far more address structures that differ, far more network topologies that differ.
that said the population will follow whatever path the exchanges/merchant tools(shoppingcarts) accept, no matter what the code/team brand is
so it ends up being that the sheep will follow the popularity, not the logic.
pre-empting standard core/blockstream defender posts
1. i dont even think BCC is bitcoin either because of the lack of merchant use from bitpay/coinbase, where merchants advertise "we accept bitcoin"
2. many will say i have been team Ver because i have been opposed to team core since 2014. but over the years team core have pigeon holed me as team gavin, team hearne, team ver.. because they cant grasp that im defending bitcoin.. not a team(on any side)
3. if you trusted a farmer for years that they are the only source of chicken eggs. if they hand you a duck egg and say its a chicken egg, does not make it a chicken egg. so take your farmer defense hat off and look at the egg
4. if your still defending a team, you have already lost the bitcoin debate
|
|
|
|
i find the process of becoming a "guru" very funny. these random dudes start making random guesses and call them prediction, and there is only two possible scenarios. price either moves in that way and they become the "guru" so they start spamming their random guesses, or price doesn't go in that direction and they will simply be forgotten since there are lots of them making these random guesses. and it goes both ways. it is not just predicting rise or fall. it is interesting to see how some of them like MacAfee start to use this "guru" power too. he practically has a twitter pump group going on  or.. they make 5 predictions each month. all time stamped. and after 6 months just delete the 24 video's that were wrong. to only show the 6 videos that were right. all time stamped to show videos were made and published before the predicted event and then promote that he only ever made 6 predictions and every prediction was correct... then beg for people to pay him membership fee's if they want prediction number 7 |
|
|
|
he had a solution in 2010 It can be phased in, like:
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
|
|
|
|
its also worth noting and people need to accept the risk that their funds are no longer 100% theirs in a channel.. its not a sole holder bank account. its a joint account. because it requires the other person to agree on what you want to do with "your money".
and we agree when we do that, that the lock-out time is 1 week, still needs agreement, thus LN is not peer to peer its partner to partner, just to clarify the inaccuracy of LN promotional material .. anyway, without 2 signatures.. funds cant move |
|
|
|
after spending a while reporting scam artists i thought i should use one of their guru's sales pitches.. but then twist it please note this is  (satire) in 1984. a japanese bitcoin prophet predicted what the price of bitcoin would do 30+ years ahead, and he done this while painting a fence click the imgur link to see the punchline https://imgur.com/UfxyGcU |
|
|
|
|
another tip is the know your recipient
if you dont know enough about the person your handing funds to, to be able to later slap them with a wet fish(court order) should they do you wrong, dont hand them any funds.
dont simply trust that because they have a glossy website that they are legit. check the WHOIS of the site. get a real world postal address. then google that postal address and see if its a real office with a company registration of the business you wish to fund.
also check google to see if its a 'virtual mailbox'(unofficial POBOX). this is usually easy to spot if there are loads of businesses linked to the same address.
get details of the CEO. check out if they have company registrations on country/state services. check their social media is not only available but also not recently created. even look if they have family/relatives in their friends list to make sure its a real person.
in short
if you had a suitcase of banknotes. instead of bitcoin. would you act any differently before handing over the suitcase to someone you never met
|
|
|
|
issue arises though is when there is a situation where person A cannot get a refund for bad service from B so A hopes B goes offline before B can send TX2.. so that A can send TX1 and hope that B doesnt wake up to send TX2..
This is kind of stupid. Like in normal bitcoin transactions, payments are irreversible. If there's no escrow, there's no way to "get a refund". Once you've paid, you've paid. What you are complaining about, is essentially that A has no possibility to steal back his money, and if he tries so, he risks to get screwed. Well, the whole idea is that if you try to steal, you get screwed, yes. With a normal bitcoin transaction, there's not even the smallest possibility to steal back your previous payment (unless you attack the block chain, and orphan the prong in which your payment was done - usually a more expensive undertaking than just propose someone to pay him if he kills B, say). Now, the LN system may let you a tiny hope to steal your payment back, but it was designed to make this very risky. You cannot use the tiny risky potential to steal in an LN as a normal way to "get a refund". im not saying its the way to get a refund. im saying that B can blackmail A, many people over many months have been promoting LN as the trustless system of decentralised control. the reality is that LN is (using a bank analogy to ELI-5 it) a joint account with a spouse.. and that spouse has another joint bank account with the plumber if YOU want to pay the plumber. you tell your wife she can have a % of you and your spouses account balance. if she then uses her other account with the plumber to give the plumber a % of that separate joint account. its not about your funds entering the plumbers account direct its also worth noting and people need to accept the risk that their funds are no longer 100% theirs in a channel.. its not a sole holder bank account. its a joint account. because it requires the other person to agree on what you want to do with "your money". but back to the topic as the scenario has meandered. the revocation key is not something you request when a dispute arises. its something thats already part of the latest tx, to revoke any disputes of using previous tx's (but a slight risk the prev tx can succeed if the latest tx is not transmitted in time) |
|
|
|
|
the "revocation key" of say TX1 becomes part of TX2 when tx2 is formed and agreed
so if a sends out a "stale" tx(tx1) then all that needs to be done is the other party needs to send out the latest tx(tx2) to overrule tx1
..
issue arises though is when there is a situation where person A cannot get a refund for bad service from B so A hopes B goes offline before B can send TX2.. so that A can send TX1 and hope that B doesnt wake up to send TX2..
B does not need to ask for a TX1 revoke key. as i said its already part of TX2
..
and as i said before B can blackmail/ refuse to make a new payment(tx3) to refund A. and as such forced A to just cry, or send out tx1 in the hope that A can get some funds.. but if B is greedy. B will send out TX2 to overrule tx1. and thus B keeps the goods and the funds
and as for Cbanks comment.. uni-directional (facepalm)(im laughing)
if a channel is you to you... you can only pay yourself in that channel.
if you want to pay others. you need other parties in another channel. but you cant move funds out of the uni channel and into a bi-directional channel without closing the uni channel to then deposit them into the bidirectional channel
i think people need to run scenarios and play around.. instead of just reading they promotional hype on reddit
EG
[A:10-A:10][A:10-A:10] [A:10-B10]
if A moves all its funds t one side in a uni.. it does not make A's bi directional suddenly fill up with an extra 40btc within LN while the channels are open
i think people need to run scenarios and play around.. instead of just reading the promotional hype on reddit
ok the first 2 channels are unidirectional.. and they do not matter at all because there is no routing.. there is literally no reason/utility in setting up [a-a]
because the [A-A] channels wont ever change.. at opening A put 20btc in.. at closing A gets 20btc out per channel
EG
true:[A:0-A:20][A:0-A:20] [A:10-B10]
false: [A:0-A:20][A:0-A:20] [A:50-B10] {magic used}
false: [A:0-A:0][A:0-A:0] [A:50-B10] {funds magically move without closing channel}
easier and common sense to just leave the 40btc (uni funds) in a legacy address without even wasting onchain fes to open a stupid uni channel... get a piece of paper and write to yourself i have 40btc and of that 40btc i owe myself 40btc
its far better to not waste onchain fee's to store funds that wont move.. and just put the 50btc total into the [a-b] because the 40btc in the unichannels wont move as routed payments. because A will always be paying A
|
|
|
|
In the field of economics, it says that, there are characteristic to determine if an object has value.
First, scarcity, if X (E.g. Bitcoin) has LIMITED supply then MAYBE it has value. Same in the nature of gold, gas and other minerals, one of the reason why its very expensive and it's getting more expensive as the time pass because it has limited supply.
If you read it carefully I use the word "maybe" because scarcity dont mean value, It's a factor that affects the value. If X is scarce but it has no use or not needed, it wont matter.
my analogy for this is: my dog does 2 poop a day. for the first 4 years thats a total of 2920. poops for the next 4 years, my dog only does 1 poop a day. thats 1460 poops then for the last 4 years of life. only 1 poop every 2 days. thats 730 poops my dogs poop is scarce, only 5110 poops will be available... want some?.. its more scarce than bitcoin .. reply. nope |
|
|
|
DO YOU THINK WE CAN HAVE A PLATFORM WERE WE CAN TRACE BITCOIN THAT IS TAKEN FROM US?
its called blockexplorer. as for WHO took the bitcoin. the lesson is simple. would you hand banknotes to a stranger ... apply same money safety common sense, when using bitcoin. if you dont know enough about someone to slap them with a wet fish(court order).. dont give them your funds |
|
|
|
The real problem of bitcoin price decline is that more of 50% of cryptocurrency community are most of them ignorant and lazy people , they just follow rumors ,
nah.. out of nearly 17m coins.. only a few hundred thousand are on exchanges affecting the price. so thats only say 1% (170k coins) of the community per exchange of that 1% not all are panic selling. there are also buyers. for every seller there is an equal buyer. so that makes 0.5% of the community is panic selling. ... the real problem is that the bitcoins "price" is not affected by nearly 17m changing hands, but instead by orderlines of exchanges that dont even have 1btc per different price offer. yes thats right. the bitcoin price and market cap can shift easily by a few$ per btc or $16million for the cap can change. just buy buying/selling less than 1btc |
|
|
|
It isn't just the supply that gives something a value, it is the demand as well.
Supply doesn't really affect Bitcoin's price that much as it is always accounted for, because it is predictable without a doubt.
It is the demand that affects it's price the most. The demand decreased for whatever reason (some sort of panic selling probably) and therefor the price fell.
correct. the supply has been a known factor since day 1. it has not changed, everyone knew and knows the supply. but the demand is the variable. demand affects price more than supply. but the price is not just supply/demand. its also speculation/manipulation which affects the price the most. for instance. i could make an exchange where each order line is set to $8,000 -1 btc $18.000 -1 btc $28,000 -1 btc and someone just buying 3btc total (of the near 17mill coin supply) can turn bitcoin from being priced/'valued' at $28,000.. yes, just 3btc can make that much of a difference in this circumstance screw it, lets make it easier $80 -0.01 btc $180 -0.01 btc $280 -0.01 btc now someone just needs to be the third person to buy 0.01btc, and for only $280. and this too results in a bitcoin being valued at $28,000 screw it, lets make it easier $0.80 -0.0001 btc $1.80 -0.0001 btc $2.80 -0.0001 btc now someone just needs to be the third person to buy 0.0001btc, and for only $2.80. and this too results in a bitcoin being valued at $28,000. my point being is that the whole near 17m coins in circulation so far are not 'valued'.. just the manipulated small amounts on some orderbooks of popular exchanges, which other exchanges blindly follow like sheep |
|
|
|
|
most media advisers try to publicise to the world to buy when there is hype. as its advertised that "things are going good".
they love to say when prices are going down that its time to sell... as its a "train crash"
this is bad bad advice.
smart trades buy at the doom and gloom, because the prices are at a discount.. and sell at the highs
so as others have said, avoid the "doom! sell sell sell" panic adverts
|
|
|
|
- snip -
None of what you wrote is an accurate description of how Lightning Network works. Furthermore, A would have to be pretty STUPID to think that he can chargeback by broadcasting tx1. It should be obvious to A that broadcasting tx1 will not help him at all. He has already sent the 10BTC to B and he has no way of getting that value back unless B is STUPID. If you are engaging in a transaction with someone that you do not have a trust relationship with, you need to take actions (BEFORE YOU SEND THE TRANSACTION) to protect yourself. As an example, perhaps use an escrow provider? ofcourse its not 'accurate' as i done it in ELI-5 human understanding. if i wrote it at code level i might aswell tell people to just read github A's hope would be that B would be offline for the timelock period and hope he can spend the 10btc before B realises that B should send tx2 because if A does not act.. B could still transmit tx2 anyway and all is lost. so A might aswell send out tx1 and hope B dosnt notice. (no guarantee it will work but its his only chance) .. but this proves that LN is not 'trustless' because humans are greedy. also its pretty stupid to think my post was about A charging back.. my example was where A tried to withdraw funds due to B not honouring a service, however B done a chargeback on A's withdrawal much like a paypal CUSTOMER doing a withdrawal. but then paypal doing a chargeback against the customer B is the charge backer... not A.. just B had to make A try to withdraw so that B could trigger the chargeback |
|
|
|
The meaning of word revocation means that I can somehow cancel the tx, however given the nature of blockchain transaction I struggle to understand how this is possible. Could someone please explain meaning of revocation in this context?
When a new commitment transaction is made, the old one should become invalid. However commitment transactions are not broadcast to the network, rather they are kept private and only broadcast when you want the channel to close. But because all commitment transactions are technically valid, we need some way to prevent people from broadcasting old commitments as they would effectively allow them to steal money. That's where the revocation key comes in. and here achow describes bank2.0 chargeback scheme imagine [a:10-b:10] where the channel counterparties each funding 10btc they make their first commitment to agree on who shares what of the 20btc available in the multisig(channel) in human language its like tx 1 [input A:10 B:10 output A:10, spendable if tx2 not confirmed in 3days B:10, spendable if tx2 not confirmed in 3days ] now A wants to buy something from B for 10. so the new commitment is made. tx 2 [a:0-b:20] but each party has a sight variation A in human language its like tx 2 [input A:10 B:10 output A:0, spendable if tx3 not confirmed in 3days B:20, spendable if tx3 not confirmed in 3days ] B in human language its like tx 2 [input A:10 B:10 output A:0, spendable if tx3 not confirmed in 3days B:20, spendable if tx3 not confirmed in 3days ] -note: they both have variations(but not shown varient) because the 'spendable if' can have extra outputs if TX2A is transmitted or TX2B is transmitted but that would take longer to explain this way it become self destructive for a counter party to send a previous TX but imagine if B was to not to deliver the goods and refuses to make a 3rd tx to refund A his 10btc A is then going to be forced to send out tx1 to HOPE to get his 10btc back, because tx2 wont give him his 10btc back. A transmits tx1, HOPING B stays offline/doesnt notice for 3 days B can then transmit his tx2 to overrule A's tx 1 and then B not only gets to keep the goods, but also gets 20btc by blackmailing A into forcibly making A transmit tx1 to then allow B to use his tx2 CSV exception (i think achow hates it when i highlight the pitfalls but LN is not the utopia people promote.. there are pitfuls) --- |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
