They were smart enough to set their supply to way fewer coins than most cryptos, and that attracted a lot of attention from everyone. If you were to multiply the 30k supply by 700 times (to get to BTC's max supply) and then divide the current price (~$29k) by 700, at Bitcoin's supply it'd be worth $41.5 right now. It's a very very vague calculus but I'm only considering the supply & price/coin.

In other words, it may be more expensive than Bitcoin but do people really not care about anything else besides price at this point?

I doubt this method would work. The problem is that ATMs are equipped with cameras, and if the ProHash ATM is manually verified by a person with every tx (like the ShitCoins one), I am afraid the KYC process would start without even taking the limits seen on the website into consideration. Wouldn't this be considered "trying to fool the system"?

---

Ma indoiesc ca ar functiona aceasta metoda. Problema este faptul ca ATM-urile sunt echipate cu camere video, iar daca ATM-ul ProHash este verificat manual de catre o persoana la fiecare tranzactie (precum cel ShitCoins), ma tem ca s-ar declansa procesul de KYC nemailuand in considerare limitele prezente pe site. Nu s-ar considera drept "o incercare de a pacali sistemul"?

There's just literally no way he can do it, unless he's working with the government (or is the government itself) - and then you'd have to wonder whether the costs are really worth it. They probably aren't - while first it might've been a cryptocurrency they felt were losing control over, today the gov has enough resources and tools to successfully trace probably more than 85% of the crypto wallets.

Inventing something doesn't necessarily mean you also have the perfect weapon against it or know how to "dismantle" your invention. All satoshi can really do is either influence the majority to transform Bitcoin into the opposite of Satoshi's whitepaper or somehow obtain 51% of the hashing power and use it against us. Other than that.. it is what it is.

I feel like the future generations will already grow up knowing what Bitcoin and blockchain tech is. The more mainstream blockchain becomes, the faster kids get to know about it.. especially if video games start implementing their own in-game cryptocurrencies at some point.

Now that I voted, I found out that I might have mistaken "cryptocurrency" for "Bitcoin" in your thread (the current board made me confused) and voted "Never" for that. From what China and other countries have apparently been doing in the past few months, it certainly does look like cashless is a near future thing. But how about we start calling the soon-to-be mainstream currencies as "digital fiat" instead, to stop mistaking them for BTC and other cryptos?

Why would it affect the economy of a country? If Bitcoin has the power to do so, then what do we say about precious metals which are way more known and used?

Volatility is a risk you agree with ever since you purchase or earn your first satoshi. Bitcoin has an entire history of volatility, so there's almost no way one can purchase BTC without knowing it. Once you have your first coins, you already know their value will change second by second.. but this is why I said it'll probably never be the perfect replacement of fiat. It just wouldn't work.

Well done - hopefully your short explanation of what Bitcoin is wasn't Deceptive Advertising

While it feels great to explain blockchain or Bitcoin stuff to people, I kinda feel exhausted especially as it's still hard to have people understand what you're talking about. On the other hand, what is truly surprising is that a high percentage of the people I talk with about Bitcoin actually become interested in it after a while. But I'd surely love to have a BTC presentation at one point in my life.

Besides decentralization and more privacy, there are probably more advantages with cash/card payments than there are with BTC when it comes to payments. The balance inclines towards an advantage of fiat vs crypto most of the times: it's instant, easy to pay, very very hard to pay at a POS and have your funds go towards a completely different card, it's waay easier to make older people understand how it works etc.

However, I personally think decentralization and more privacy outruns the fiat advantages over the long term. Think about it: you can have a Bitcoin cold wallet for savings that you will use for 20 years straight and there will be zero fears of your money being seized. You can transfer literally a billion bucks to the other side of the world and nobody'd know a thing if you do it the right way.

But the thing is, I don't think it'll ever really be a reliable fiat replacement. I can only see it right now as a store of value; for it to become a mainstream currency as in a replacement of USD and other fiat currencies, you'd need either centralization or a technology that doesn't exist yet.

So I sincerely believe Bitcoin has a tendency more towards a "digital gold" kind of asset than the perfect solution for a cashless society. Moreover, the decentralization may be a big advantage to us as users of it and citizens of various countries, but in the end if you think about it.. governments will never agree to lose control over something as important as money. That would not only be something that's never happened before, but also something very very risky.

I probably usually express myself the wrong way when talking about DeFi as a bubble. Whenever I do so, I usually talk about the coins like YFI that popped up and boomed in a matter of weeks like crazy. I can't see this going well, the same way pretty much any other crypto boom didn't end up well either. Most other members probably talk about the coins as well.

The tech will probably stay and evolve. The problem is imo that too many people are now rushing in to buy coins like YFI and this cannot go on forever. It's a constant talk about false ideas, especially decentralization, as if DeFi solves everything. It doesn't - there's a long way to go before we finally get to a properly structured and working decentralized app that has absolutely zero centralized features in it and is 100% trustless and reliable for most use cases.

To stop it "again"? Has he ever done that before?

No, he doesn't have the power to stop it. If anything, if he ever comes back, he might temporarily be able to strongly influence the market. Considering the immaturity of the markets, that's possible but wouldn't last too long though. Otherwise, it is pretty unstoppable. Why would you listen to a guy who disappeared for a decade and sell everything or suddenly stop using BTC because he says so? We already understand the system and we like it as it is.

Let's suppose we found out who Satoshi is. What other achievement besides putting his life under high risk would you have? You've potentially destroyed someone's life, a person's who has invented something to grant you financial freedom. Congratulations.

If Satoshi EVER wants to reveal himself, he will. Just give him peace, because it so far seems like that's what he wants... and for a good, very good reason.

Crappy curiosity, if I'm being honest. I can't imagine anything going well if someone gets to reveal who Satoshi is. Like.. okay, we found his identity. So.. what's the endgame?

This is a typical Bitcoin saying to make a person understand that, if you don't have the private keys to your Bitcoins, they're basically not yours anymore.. as in, someone else should have it then (a custodial wallet, an exchange etc) so you don't have control.

Inserting this as a law is messed up and the Bitcoin way of saying "what I find shall be mine". What I wonder is, what happens if three persons sign a message from the same address proving they all have ownership over it? lol. Moreover, this is so wrong when you think about third parties and allows even more abuse than KYC does.. so through this law, does it mean that once I send my BTC to a custodial wallet I definitely lose the ownership of my coins as they're not my privkeys anymore?

Does anyone besides magnate lovers even care about this guy though? Does he even have any influence..? And if yes, how is someone who's launched a coin so many years after BTC more influential than BTC devs and influencers?

It's funny how you create the decentralization's enemy and then start talking pure nonsense about something decentralized being centralized. What...?

Yeah, if China wanted to take all those farms, nationalise them or forcefully take them over, that can happen. But I think banning Bitcoin is more realistic than this scenario. Then, even if that happens, does this guy Larsen know that we have enough geniuses developing BTC who could immediately find a way to prevent this from happening again as soon as China tries it?

It's just non-realistic, and it's honestly mostly a noob's fear. This says a lot about Larsen.

First is basically true. New Bitcoins only come through mining, or older coins get into circulation by transactions. However, the you got the second one wrong. Miners do not wait for transactions before they start mining. If so, if there was only a tx per week on the blockchain, do you think anyone would keep an entire farm alive to try their luck for a matter of minutes?

Mining happens anyway, with or without txs. We need the inflation to stay approximately the way it has been structured to be through coding, the only variable being block time. If mining only happened once txs were initiated, that would mean there would be some blockchains with a temporarily fixed supply.. as in there'd be no more coins to be mined before someone initiates a transaction..

Apologies in advance for the length of my post.

If you believe the negotiation will take a long time, you either accept the price no matter what the USD pair is or you have to link the BTC price to USD one way or another. I get what you're trying to do, and I admire you for it, but this is your profit and credibility at stake. While I might not want to negotiate a price of 0.6BTC in a matter of months when BTC/USD could be growing at a fast pace, you wouldn't want that to happen to you either. As stompix said, this is a situation where both parties risk having the other back out from the deal.

That's where I guess you want to decide what you want more: BTC or fiat value? The thing is, it's quite risky to have a 0.6BTC customer back out .. if say Bitcoin's USD value doubles, then you would have to put the domain on sale again, this time for half the price.. and that is 0.3BTC.

So yeah, this is a very sensitive subject.. and a double edged sword. You should also consider the other side of the story, as to me it seems like you're thinking one step ahead: you're missing the first step.. finding a customer. You might not have a customer at all for a matter of months or years. In that case, if Bitcoin doubles in the meantime, are you going to keep the same 0.6BTC price or will you cut it in half? This is where we go back to the bolded question above..

Now about recommending wallets/exchanges or giving information about BTC, it depends. If you start giving out information, the customer might expect you to explain and answer questions they may have. Not giving any kind of info may also be wrong, as you might have a customer who really wants to pay you and get the domain but backs out because they're uncertain about using BTC. So it might be the best to go right in between the two.. find some handy links that explain any questions they may have (say a BTC F.A.Q. or a how-to for Electrum, etc) and hand them out whenever a customer is in doubts.

Again, sorry for the length of my post. I really hope I have helped with your concerns; anyway, best of luck with your business.

A while ago, I have tried opening up Electrum and importing a private key completely invented by me, letter by letter. It resulted in an error, and no matter how many times I tried to change it, it wouldn't work. Here's something I found, related to your question:

(Source: https://news.coinsquare.com/learn-coinsquare/checksum-addresses-how-blockchains-add-security/)

Therefore, my best guess is that you could invent a wallet that doesn't have a checksum for addresses, but don't the miners also validate them? Because if they do, then it's a dead end for the person trying to send any BTC to an invalid address as it'd get immediately rejected upon broadcasting. And even if it's somehow possible to also have a miner that skips address validation, 1 confirmation doesn't automatically mean it gets confirmed.

Great example why you shouldn't let influencers influence you and your brain. Money speaks words here - they've probably been paid well enough to say "fuck it" and jump in the other team's boat.

It's a shame that some people allow selling themselves to others, even if we're talking about millions. The ironic thing is, they're probably going to lose more in the long run considering they're known as cypherpunks/maximalists and now have shown their true faces.

Yeah, why not promote something you used to stand against if you get money, huh?

Not 100% sure if that's the case with stablecoins as well, but let's do a little economics recap. Let's take EUR and USD. Say there are a trillion EUR in circulation and two trillion USD. If suddenly the EUR in circulation doubles, it loses power against USD.

USDT, TUSD and all the other stablecoins (especially those that we suspect aren't really 100% backed in fiat) act the same way the mechanism above works. In other words, if I take it logically, I think the more stablecoins there are printed, the more power BTC earns.

Now there's one question that remains standing: how do we know if all fiat stablecoins are backed in real fiat? Well, we don't. That is why this calculus probably varies a lot.

Interesant thread-ul despre Bitcoin Romania, insa sincer sa fiu, e putin cam derutant modul lor de operare. Convorbirile la telefon cu echipa lor m-au pus de multe ori in stare de dificultate/confuzie, fapt pentru care am ales sa nu folosesc niciodata ATM-ul lor.

Ce-i drept, in ultimul timp am devenit foarte paranoic legat pana cand si de ATM-uri si am ajuns la concluzia ca, in momentul in care am sa ma decid eu sa imi retrag monedele pe care le detin, probabil nu voi mai avea incotro decat sa ma supun acestor reguli. I-as retrage P2P si as achita si taxele aferente, dar numai de-al naibii vreau sa continui sa incerc sa scap pur si simplu de controlul pe care ei incearca sa-l obtina. Traiesc, totusi, cu speranta ca se mai poate schimba ceva in bine pana atunci.. Desi pare ca ne afundam tot mai rau.

---

In orice caz, vin cu o veste buna. Thread-ul tau mi-a adus aminte de ceva: exista un ATM in Oradea care, aparent, inca are limite destul de OK:

Numele ATM-ului este ProHash (www.prohash.eu), situat in Galeria Auchan de pe Str. Ogorului. Potrivit CoinATMRadar, au comision de 2.9% la cumparare si 7.5% la vanzare.

Limitele sunt urmatoarele:
<5000 RON anonim;
5000-10000 RON cu nr de telefon;
>10000 RON cu nr de telefon + act de identitate.

Adresa completa:
Strada Ogorului 171
Oradea, 410554
Romania

Mai multe detalii importante nu stiu daca exista pe site-ul lor - sunt momentan pe browser fara JS, fapt pentru care nu prea reusesc sa ajung la celelalte link-uri sau scripturi prezente pe site. Sper, cu toate acestea, ca am ajutat. Daca doresti, il poti adauga la OP

Pentru un moment, odata cu schimbarea titlului, am avut impresia ca exista un thread de mai multe pagini pe care l-am ratat.

In orice caz, pana faci tu al doilea ERC20 poate imi explodeaza si mie P.U.L.A. la niveluri astronomice avand in vedere ca acum probabil detin mai bine de 50% din supply-ul nepierdut.. Doamne ajuta!

Price and market cap are two completely different things. Launch a coin with 1 total supply and see how astronomical its price could get.

Edit: here you go

Chances aren't high, I'd say. Considering the number of ETH tokens, I would have to guess there needs to be a large bubble pop in the shitcoins balloon in order for it to also fall. There's also a psychological thing that many may not see. We're used to seeing ETH, XRP and BTC at the top. If another coin gets up there, it might emotionally disrupt the markets for a while.