from https://credacash.com/crosschain-exchange-overview/
But what if the following case happens:
The seller (of credacash) uses modified software that always behaves as if no bitcoin payment has been made. He receives Btc, waits until payment time expires so that his payment reverts and has now both credacash and bitcoin.

IIUC this exchange is not atomic, but would be similar to Bisq.
Bisq requires a security deposit (locked into multisig bitcoin tx) from both buyer and seller, and must use human arbitrators for dispute resolution. Can credacash solve this more elegantly, and how?

Die Anwendung ist ja einfach, bei Litecoin. Und im Idealfall ist die tx Gebühr damit viel niedriger wenn in einer Boom Phase der Mempool übervoll ist aber in den Extension Blocks ist noch Platz (das geht nur mit Bitcoin). Dann setzt es sich durch, sonst nicht.

Wäre interessant zu erfahren ob schon mal jemand solche bösen Ltc bei Kraken oder Bitcoin.de o.ä. verkauft hat, und ob es Probleme gab.

Man muss auch bedenken dass der "Taint" rückwirkend sichtbar werden kann, z.b. wenn die gekauften Münzen von einem DNM stammen der dann vielleicht Jahre später von Gesetzeshütern dichtgemacht wird. Und jedes Unternehmen kann seine eigene Definition von guten und  schlechten Btc durchsetzen wollen was dann wie willkürliche Schikane von Kunden aussieht. Das einzige was man dagegen machen kann ist auch wieder dezentral zu verkaufen, und natürlich keine UTXOs mischen. Einen Trend zu wirklicher Unterteilung je nach Historie mit unterschiedlichem Preis für gute und schlechte Bitcoins sehe ich nicht.

MWEB Softfork wie bei Litecoin

Interessant für private Anwender ist die faktische Gleichsetzung von Kauf, Mining und Airdrop. Alles ist "Anschaffung".

Mining ist eine "Anschaffung" und ein "tauschähnlicher Vorgang" (Randnummer 42)

Forging ist auch "Anschaffung" (Randnummer 33, Ich lese zwischen den Zeilen dass das FA gegenüber dem Hersteller des Genesis Blocks sehr gemein sein könnte)

Es gibt keine Steuerpflicht wegen einer Anschaffung, nur nach der Veräusserung (Randnummer 54). Es gilt die Jahresfrist (Randnummer 55)

Auch für ""unentgeltliche"" (1 * "" im Pdf) Airdrops wird in der Regel eine Leistung erbracht. (Randnummer 29). Leistung ist eine Handlung oder hingegebene Daten. Der Wert entspricht vermutlich dem Marktwert der Gegenleistung. Es ist eine "Anschaffung" (Randnummer 75). Der Wert ist 0 wenn es zu dem Zeitpunkt keinen Markt gibt (Randnummer 73)

Das wäre eine deutliche Verbesserung gegenüber der bisherigen Unsicherheit:

Wenn ein Normalkunde egal wo, auch an einer altmodischen Aktienbörse, für seine Position nicht
mehr genug Sicherkeiten hat dann dauert es wenn er Glück hat noch ein paar Minuten bis zur Liquidation,
immer automatisch und bestens, ohne Limit.

Entweder ein algorithmischer Stablecoin ist zu jeder Zeit mit Kollateral gesichert dass der Besitzer des Stablecoins
sich auszahlen lassen kann (Vertrauen braucht man dazu nicht und darf es nicht brauchen)
oder er ist es nicht, dann wird er nicht stabil sein.

Kann sich noch jemand an Nushares erinnern und Nubits, oder Bitshares und BitUSD? Leichen die am Strassenrand liegen gibt es genug.

if I understand correctly, when a new coin (in this case derived from Bitcoin Core, that has a 0.17.1 core wallet and an Electrum wallet) is added to the Beam Atomic Swaps, this is done only with an update of the desktop wallet while the node operates as before, and this is not a change of the Beam consensus because the consensus has no reason to know any details about the coins in the Atomic Swaps lineup?

When using a VPN, and a site like ipleak.net can't tell the real ip, then MetaMask doesn't know it too. Perhaps it sends data about language setting of operating system or browser to the server that has the node. Or worse, the node could have a blacklist of Eth addresses that have been used from these regions in the past. Or proxyban, then only some VPN should be affected.

The second one is pretty bad, if I would get this notification while having a wallet unlocked in metamask with USDT in it, maybe I'd click automatically on "Approve".

Nothing can be done about it, Metamask (or a web browser) can't whitelist URLs. Users must know what they must know, things like "don't have critical and unnecessary stuff open in a web browser at the same time, browser extensions can read everything in the browser even while not visibly active at the moment, and metamask is a piece of software that doesn't know my email". (And if it knows my IP or my other Eth addresses then this is my own fault.)

The difference between competitive production costs within your country, or your products becoming overpriced abroad is perhaps not about nominal inflation or deflation, but how people react to it. Who has pricing power, will workers go on strike and demand more increase than current inflation, or will they just do nothing about it. In deflationary spiral, the country could also buy products and labour for cheap from countries that have printed too much fiat. In the end, nothing will be permanently overpriced due to deflation.

When metamask is unlocked, it knows the balance of these 2 accounts. Metamask is not a full node, it must have contacted a server,
sent the 2 addresses to this server and asked what their current balance is.

Not a hacker, but now the world knows that those two wallets belong to the same Metamask wallet.

The exchange could provide liquidity and make this trading pair more attractive, either with an automated system or manually (let someone trade market maker style with the exchange's money). Otherwise it will be stuck with the chicken and egg problem of no liquidity, no traders, no liquidity.

Until today I thought that, because Tether had to ask Omni for a hardfork to quarantine stolen USDT after the hack on November 19, 2017, freezing funds would require another Omni hardfork to freeze other addresses, and small fish would be safe here. However they lied in their press release

What they actually did was permanently corrupting Omni that was decentralized before.

Conspiracy theory, Tether hacked themselves on purpose so they can lick authority boots and have better compliance.

Probably true for any shady crypto even if not a smartcontract.

If your system allows both withdrawals and deposits of one coin at a fixed rate in tokens, then I think it's not very difficult to add withdrawals and deposits for other coins at a variable rate calculated from available reserves of the coins and of Tetra tokens.

It wouldn't be decentralized, but would work as some cross-chain, Uniswap style exchange.

One player character. The masses of new chars that are currently coming forth, e.g. the many Oscars can't win because the original Oscar has already died and is now a monster.

Can see them in upper left corner of Game tab in the wallet. Pretty fast now.
(And the generated html pages in same folder as the qt give more info, what players exist, what they're planning etc)

Most big game worlds, from EVE Online to good ol' WoW, have a currency. Players get it in-game, and spend it in-game. This currency can be a token on an external chain, don't need T-Shirts or your own blockchain. Cheap solution is when only the centralized server that runs the game is a node and converts the token into in-game play money and back, transparent for the players. (don't want them to pay an Eth tx fee for every action in the game)

I think in most cases 'blockchain' means that the game has non-fungible tokens that devs and/or players can sell to make money. If it has a token that is rather common, like in-game gold, then it would be less non-fungible.

It's free but not a blockchain game... however in OP it doesn't say anything about blockchain too.

To get the 0.1 BTC prize money, do the following:

1. Download the game client from Smartmonsters.org and read the "How to play" page.
   This is a blockchain game (game client == wallet).

2. Optional but recommended: send PM with a coin address to get 1000 coins
   (on a best efford basis).

3. Wait until block 2000, then make a new player character. Or several. But only one can win.
   ***Only characters created after block 2000 can win***

4. Optional but recommended: make a move every 2000 blocks. (about once per day, but it may vary)
   Winner is the richest player character on testnet block 26000.

5. type in Debug Window:
      (replace "Alice" with your character name, and the eater address with your BTC address)


Additional rules:

1.) If block 26000 happens before 12:00GMT on Oct 16, then the competition continues 'til next full 1000 blocks after 12:00GMT on Oct 16.

2.) The winner must be alive and not a monster when the competition ends. If it has multiplied, coins of all its descendants count too (if they're alive and not a monster). Output of game client (column "voting coins" in stats_voting.html) is used to determine the winner.

3.) In case of a critical bug, the competition may be paused and then restarted.


I'll try to answer questions about the game here in this thread.

I don't think that one side (coins supplied by lenders) is per definition better quality than the other side (collateral), all can crash. On Compound the coin with highest supply is Dai (996M, which would be more than marketcap of 445M according to CMC?). Dai has already exactly this problem, it's collateralized with another coin that can crash.

If total borrowed amount is small enough compared to marketcap of the coins used as collateral and compared to the liquidity of markets in which liquidation will happen and if (big IF) the system executes this liquidation fast enough, then yes, the pool can be properly collateralized.

If someone fears a crash but wants to stay in crypto, buying stablecoin and lending them out might still be the best option. (compared to buying Tether-like stablecoin and not lending them out)