you really are not learning much are you. you are reading buzzwords and snippets and repeating them like a robot. but you are not actually learning or understanding..

--Snip--

Loaded didn't get caught because he was flexing, he got caught because he transferred to a KYC exchange.

But yeah you're probably right, Eth whales better would be a better candidate for this project.

You may be referring to this article: https://thebitcoinmanual.com/articles/lightning-coinjoins/
Splicing and rebalancing seem quite useful and can definitely add some extra privacy on top.

As explained here, Lightning is not perfectly private as of right now.
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/state-of-bitcoin-lightning-network-privacy

I'm not sure about the state of splicing in July 2023, though.
Core Lightning has an open Pull Request for it, although it seems like other implementations just started supporting it:

funny part is that more people use CEX internal reserve swaps between services and stable coin by a magnitude of 1,000,000x compared to LN
the reason people avoid the bitcoin network first and then use CEX second and then use ln 7th (other bridge subnetworks exist with more liquidity 3-6) is due primarily due to high onchain fees.

yep people avoid the bitcoin network due to fee's not due to (lack of)successes of other flawed systems

funny part is instead of fixing flaws to make it better they just want to promote any hype they can find
especially when if you really observe you will find the initiation of LN was inspired by the hyperledger project(institutions gathering to prototype CBDC, asking bitcoin devs to develop and sandbox test CDBC methodology on subnetworks)

so ofcourse a FED is going to suck eggs about something they pushed for years prior. as its the basis of their own project

SBW Wond be supporting LN anymore.
Motivations are interesting.

I haven't taken a look at the source code, going by Pedro Magalhães assessment:

Blockchain's meant to be utilized as a trustless system IMO but all Brazil's done here is centralize the system with this alleged protocol. Under no circumstances should coins be burned from addresses nor should they be frozen. Assume it'll be abused by the government to compel compliance from their constituency and assume they'll try and market this as a cryptocurrency adjacent by throwing around the word "blockchain"

Yes, it’s laziness and stupidity, it’s not difficult to guess that under this “convenience” there is total control over every step, every cent spent. Retinal scanning discouraged me in general, it's really stupid, but I see that it's even fun for buyers to pay in this way, this is a bad sign, the majority will accept all the innovations and be happy about it, and no one will think about the consequences until it's too late. I don’t know, any step against the state will endanger their finances, went out to some kind of protest, scan the retina from a drone and block all the money in the account. It may sound a little paranoid, but this is just one example.

its a different culture, yes. but we're still human.

There used to be a user here called "Loaded". His whole thing was going around, flexing that he had 80k BTC.
There have also been a couple users flexing that they had 100+ btc throughout the years.

Also, may I remind you. Cryptopunks and BAYC holders are signifying the same thing (Rich Believers in Crypto).

Also, I don't see how this could be a honeypot. Criminals always try to stay under the radar (at least the smart ones).
This would only be useful to people with legitimate funds.

The whole point of a government / Central Bank issued CBDC is that the people lose ‘total control’ of their money. I mean most people won’t have a problem with every day purchases but they have the power to stop you buying certain products, stop you buying too much fuel if you use too much carbon. That’s where a CBDC leads to, authoritarianism, like China, social credit scores etc. I really hope CBDC’s do not happen, they will tax & know everything. If you fix a car for a neighbour for a small fee, they will know. They want to abolish cash, hopefully it doesn’t happen.

You know how they just “raised the debt ceiling?” This isn’t true. They didn’t raise the ceiling, they eliminated it until a future date. Do you remember the last time they did that? It was august 2019. September 2019 was the repo crisis, where overnight loans on treasuries hit an annualized interest rate of 10%! And conveniently we had a reason to make money printer go BRRR in 2020.

I don’t in general like conspiracies, but with no limit on US debt, we have effectively put a blank check out there for anyone to cash if they can create the economic conditions necessary to justify massive money printing. We are incentivizing our own destruction. I wouldn’t be surprised if we have some major happen in 2024…a new pandemic with lockdowns, WW3 starting in earnest, aliens turn out to be here and not-so-friendly, etc…

It's not that early. I mean, lightning began in 2017. Six years and two bull markets have passed since then.

It's both already.

That's very debatable. In terms of BTC, lightning has ~5,000 BTC, which is ~$150M. Monero, with a circulating supply of 18M XMR, has an equivalent of ~99,447 BTC. It's much better in terms of anonymity set.

They're a little bit late, but it's better late than never. I'm surprised it took them so long to integrate it since Binance is the biggest exchange.

CBDCs have nothing to offer that fiat have not offered. You can send fiat digitally and it is under the control of central banks and the government just like the CBDCs. In function, is there anything added to CBDCs that fiat can not offer? I see nothing new about CBDCs than claiming that it is built using blockchain. In function, digital fiat and CBDCs are the same thing and they totally invade people's privacy.

Oh, the irony!
Just had a power failure while writing this post, I was going to kill somebody if the ups would have failed and lost it.


Because scaling is a b1tch!
What works for a hobby miner it becomes impossible to run when you multiply it by a dozen.
1 S9? I can run it in my bathroom! 20? I will turn off the power on the street, my neighbors will call the police and I won't be able to hear even 10 cops cars over the noise, and probably from the heat my bathtub will melt before they arrive!

Same here, you got enough power for 5kw miners, how do you get the cheap or zero cooking oil for more?
It's like living on soda cans, you can pick a few hundred each day but can you pick 10 000 a day? Scaling!

To be more careful, we need to understand that this other cryptocurrencies inventors, operators or project developers also rely on bitcoin as their solid investment background asset that funds the other projects they developed, so why should a common man like we made a decision to invest with them when we have the direct link to invest with bitcoin and hodl thesame way others are making their profits from it.

Correlation does not imply causation. If I fart now and you see that it starts to rain, would you say that it started to rain because I farted?

Let's imagine that your assumption is realized. A few funds have taken and concentrated in their hands almost all bitcoins, because they decided that this is a good investment. As a consequence of this decision, bitcoin will practically stop moving, because it makes no sense for them to sell it, this is a long-term investment. In the absence of movement, miners will no longer be interested in it, difficulty will drop, the risk of a 51% attack will increase, trust in bitcoin will decrease, bitcoin will start to drop sharply in price, and investments in bitcoin will depreciate.

If some random dude on the forum managed to see this scenario over a cup of hot drink, then the analytical departments of the funds are also quite capable of doing such analyzes. Accordingly, no funds are interested in buying up and hiding all bitcoins, they are interested in participating in the development of bitcoin, but within the limits of not depreciating the asset in which they invest. If they have large enough investments, they may well take an active part in the circulation of bitcoins.

So I don't think the problem is realizable.

Buy when the market falls deeply, but how much is deep? Buying at the bottom is also risky, as a drop in prices could be a sign that the market is about to crash. It has also adjusted to over 80% in the past. Therefore, you have to determine which price zone is attractive enough to buy. As for where the bottom is, we can't guess. Let's discuss whether to catch the bottom or not and when the bottom is right, at what price will you sell? Do you buy a valuable asset when it falls below the previous price, but is that the final bottom or will the price continue to fall and establish a new low?

For asset classes such as stocks, real estate, gold... that have been around for a long time and are popular in the market, bottom fishing is very popular and it has resistances that are hard to break. However, with a new and volatile market like cryptocurrencies, bottom fishing can bring many risks because the market size is not too large, so some sharks can manipulate the market and break resistances. so you have to be very careful when catching the bottom in this market. Should I catch the bottom of altcoins or the bottom of BTC? In my opinion, BTC should only be bottomed because it has been joined by many large organizations, appeared the earliest and is held by many organizations and individuals, so it cannot collapse. As for Altcoins, there are already many coins with a value of 0. Or with coins in the top 20, you can catch the bottom.

After successfully catching the bottom, when will you sell them? That is a very difficult question to answer.

I still believe that ETF effects on bitcoin price has been greatly exaggerated, although it will definitely have a positive effect on the price.

In any case when it comes to the next big rise, as I've said before the global economy is the major factor affecting the market for now. The rising inflation was excellent for bitcoin but then recession started and ruined its effects. Now they are trying to reach an equilibrium which is why we don't see rise (or fall) start.

But the inflation is still rising very fast and its effects on bitcoin price is growing. After all this fast growing national debt[1] due to nonstop money printing is bound to push bitcoin price up. $32.5 trillion US debt, $14.5 trillion Chinese debt, $13.5 trillion Japanese debt, and so on. US alone printed over a trillion in the past couple of months ever since the debt ceiling was raised.

In other words 6 digit price is definitely possible in the next major bull run.

[1] https://www.usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.html

But whether all miners get together and carry out a 51% attack or all validators get together for a 51% attack is basically the same, it is possible with both

This is important now and from the very beginning. Once it became apparent that bitcoin had become an important element in the world of finance, it became easy to predict the interest of large corporations. We have been seeing for a long time how bitcoin is being bought up even in view by the thousands and tens of thousands, and how many more secret purchases. But changing the original rules of the supply-limited game could change everything, because bitcoin's conservatism gives it prestige and a level of credibility. Trying to fit in with momentary interests can change everything, and we should not listen to those who are thinking about abandoning the idea of limited issue.

There are already a huge number of such cryptocurrencies. There are already so many full-fledged blockchains that it is difficult to count them all. If someone needs inflationary cryptocurrencies, then they can either choose from this set or make their own as much as they want.

As for trillions, they are not going to buy bitcoins with all these trillions. If I go to a candy store with a thousand dollars of capital, it does not mean that I will spend more than a few dollars there.

I don't understand why Bitcoin is more decentralized than Ethereum even though you operate a full node with both.

To create the blocks:
Bitcoin PoW = miners
Ethereum PoS = Validator

With Bitcoin/Ethereum Full Node you can verify the blocks from the miners/validators.

So the only point why Bitcoin is more decentralized than Ethereum is:
The Bitcoin Full Node is cheaper than the Ethereum Full Node ?

Or is it the case with Ethereum that you cannot verify the blocks as a full node but only as a validator?
So:
Bitcoin miners create block / full nodes verify the block
Ethereum validator create block / validator also verify the block