When it comes on trying out to assess your trading capability then 1 year should really be enough or even on 6 months on doing trading.

Can't they make a valid transaction invalid? Isn't it double spending? If anyone can censor transactions, the network won't be any more decentralized. My bad if I have written something wrong, that's what I know. I'm not saying that's going to happen though.

Well, it doesn't make sense. Why would someone bother to attempt to do so by spending this huge amount in achieving this huge hash rate?

As inflation has fallen to 3%, the period of rate hikes should end very soon. Yes, a 0.25% rate hike is now possible, but the Fed could make a surprise move by announcing a pause. In fact, they're talking about 2% - but it's not really 2%, right? So expect some surprises in the near future

As far as we know, no.

There are concerns that the lack of necessary legislation could lead to a wave of CBDCs that banks or financial institutions could be free to launch. The state alone cannot work on developing and launching this type of currency without entering into formulas and agreements with other financial institutions and defining the powers of each party.
In all analyzes and opinions, everyone raises the issue from the point of view of governments and legislators, due to the tacit conviction that users do not have the freedom of choice and therefore do not have the freedom to control their balances of those currencies since they are subject to the supervision of government control agencies. These currencies are the new face of fiat money and have nothing to do with the privacy or decentralization that characterizes cryptocurrencies.

The devil is still in the details Wind_FURY.... because each of us likely have time-based considerations, but also just buying on the dip in itself is a price-based consideration. 

So, even though it does not hurt to throw out those ideas, each of us are likely attempting to weigh both types of considerations and to employ those into our overall approach to BTC whether it is in regards to the way that we accumulate BTC or in regards to the extent that we might consider various points that we might sell.. and sometimes we are going to have to consider both time and price at the same time, because if the BTC price shot up to $1 million within this calendar year, it might cause some folks to take some value off the table because the BTC price seems to be unsustainable to be shooting up so rapidly, but if the BTC price slowly goes up for the next 4-10 years and maybe it reaches $1 million in that time frame, and maybe it does not, but the mere passage of time, could well contribute to changes in our own personal ways of thinking about how we might want to manage our BTC portfolio, even if the BTC price reaches the same amount of $1 million, and we are not being irrational or panicking merely because we change our strategy based on the differences in the timeline that ends up playing out in those two different scenarios that I suggested that either of which could end up happening...

There are only two ways to judge our trading performance which go hand in hand, the first one is the money in our pockets, if at the end of our trading session we have more money than when we begun then this is a good sign, as people should trade for only one reason and that is to make money.

The second criteria we need to use is the process which allowed to get those profits, after all if those profits come from a fortunate movement of the markets that saved us from losing money then we did something wrong and as such those results are not repeatable, however if those profits came from a deep analysis of the markets and we have backtested our strategy many times and those results fit what we can expect out of it, then we are doing things the right way and can expect more sessions like that on the future.

Let's imagine a situation. The year is 2140. No one is using the first layer for transactions anymore. All transactions are conducted on something like Ark protocol. There are 100 Ark service providers collectively generating 100 transactions in each block. They set a fee of 1.20 satoshis per vByte in their transactions. Miners go out of business and stop producing blocks. Network difficulty drops dramatically, and Bitcoin ceases to be a reliable store of value.

Wouldn't it be better to take unused coins and use them to incentivize miners to continue their business?

No, it's not that laughable at all. If we keep in mind that people don't take care of their wallets and use service like Ledger Recover, then we can say that number of lost bitcoins will grow in near future. At the same time, if demand on bitcoin tremendously rises, that will also mean that a lot of new people won't be able to keep wallet/coins safe and they'll lose them too. Imagine, Binance loses its reserves, which is about half a million bitcoins or hackers steal thousands of bitcoins multiple times but burn every proof, including wallet key/seed before their arrest? Everything can happen.

funny observation that you link a chart that IGNORED this last current month.. because.. capacity dropped in the last month by alot (so that just debunks YOUR "year on year" growth, becasue if you include all months of the year, you will see a drop)

So your argument is BCH announced a hardork, officially stated the day it would go ahead and wrote the code to make it happen, because THEY DIDN'T WANT TO SPLIT?  Is that the level of fuckwittery we're going with now?



*facepalm*

If Core devs hadn't been able to look at BCH's code repository, which they could see forked from their own repository, then they wouldn't have been able to see what network magic BCH was using.  If you try to apply some logic for the first time in your life, you might comprehend that this means the BCH code existed before Core decided to take action to protect BTC users.  Do I have to provide a link to the developer discussion about it again?

Here you go:   https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10982

BCH code clearly existed first.  They caused it.

just get a drip of yourself and understand that lightning has failed the test of time, its time to move on, ask for something better. ask your gods to do something. (no 'ask' isnt an acronym for ass kiss)
not just kiss their ass, flatter them with compliments while they do other things sponsored by banking institutions, rather than the decentralised bitcoin community they should be taking care of

But it's worth noting that blockchain data alone leaves out a significant detail.  Intent.  

A hard fork proposal was announced by Bitmain prior to the activation of SegWit.  This is all very well documented, but certain disinfomation agents like franky1 continue to sweep it under the rug because it doesn't fit their agenda or their attempts to distort history.  The declaration was always there that a hardfork would take place if SegWit were likely to activate.  And thus, BCH happened.

Bitmain wanted nothing to do with SegWit because it was a threat to their business model.  They were always going to pursue the existence of a blockchain where SegWit was not activated.  See the ASICboost controversy for further detail.  It's clearly a lie for franky1 to insinuate that the hardfork was anything to do with the method by which SegWit was activated.  Whether it had been NYA, UASF or Core's original proposal, Bitmain would have been pushing for a hardfork regardless.

But since franky1 is a sociopath, he will now proceed to come up with some more ridiculous technobabble about how his delusional version of history is somehow accurate (it isn't).  I hope everyone enjoys the rest of this topic getting thoroughly derailed because franky1 is an obnoxious piece of shit who won't accept reality.

Well despite having long-term perspectives in mind while buying Bitcoin, we must still put in mind that our entry price matters a lot because the buy price is what determines the level and time of profits, this is so because those that bought their first Bitcoin at all-time high price above $55,000-60k+ are going to wait longer before the records profits compared to those that bought bitcoin at a discounted price below $16,000-20k if bitcoin make any all-time high above the last ATH.

you just hit the nail on the head. I appreciate your honest response to my question. I do know that not having a stable source of income while relying 100% on trading profits might not be the way to go for most people and it might mess up trading psychology since a new trader would have to choose between their empty stomach and withdrawing a part of their trading capital every time to survive. This isn't the ideal way to go.

I do have some concerns:  

Someone with a stable source of income might just want a trading career or has a passion for trading and numbers. This wouldn't apply to them?
 

Thank you.

I agree with you. No one can predict for sure where the bottom of BTC will be. In my opinion, you should determine where your buy zone is, when the btc price reaches the target price area you start buying. You can divide into many buy zones with different weights. When you buy BTC at a good price, your psychology will be very stable when the price fluctuates up and down. And you will hold BTC to the target price you expect.

im not a bitcoin cash fan. i never used it i never even claimed their forked coins of the same key i used on bitcoin ever

you are the ultimate troll that are again spouting silly rhetoric trained on you by an idiot mentor of yours that makes you think those that dont treat core as god must be a fork coin lover

 

Your script is to convert "layer 2" to "subnetwork".  
Your script is to convert "offchain" to "other networks".  
Your script is to convert an inclusive and eloquent soft fork into "bloat".  

subnetworks have a NICHE but are not the solution. especially not this flawed subnetwork called LN that needs a complete rebuild or be scrapped and a fresh attempt made using different economic model.. rather then waiting another half decade for empty promises and pretend successes, even when the stats do not convey what they pretend

Wait?

Would be great right if bitcoin drive its value and more and more people join the crypto industry right or I am missing something here so in my opinion Bitcoin ETF is great but anything also has advantages and disadvantages

the big Disadvantage is those companies like BlackRock and other US companies will have the majority of Bitcoin maybe in total would be couple of percent of Bitcoin supply and the ETF buyer dont have real impact to Bitcoin world

Of course, the difference in capital that you mention is incredible, because a few billion $ compared to $10 trillion managed by one company together with all other companies/funds make up tens of trillions of $ in value, and all this in a possible combination with investing in Bitcoin definitely tickles the imagination of anyone who thinks about it.

The question of all questions is how much interest there is in investing in Bitcoin through such funds - is it 1%, 5% or maybe even 10% - are we talking about tens, hundreds of billions of $ or even trillions of $?