Good because it's actually a bad idea. What would the purpose of POW and holding our own keys if there was a "legal" form of taking someone else's property away from them? Who decides which UTXOs are "lost"?

I believe the same kind of topic was also suggested by an individual called Craig Wright in one of his talks. No I didn't listen to his talk, I read it in the news or a blog, I don't remember. Haha.

The Cabal, the Oligarchs, and the Banksters would also lose the psychological and philosophical context of the question, "What is money"?

Because if Bitcoin could be a better form of money, that means they lose control over what defines something as "money". They don't want that. They want to maintain this idea that "Money" is what the Central Bank issues and what the government allows its citizens to pay their taxes in.

Or how about we put ideology aside.

I believe SEC should also focus on which of those altcoin protocols/networks are technically feasible/which of them are actually working and which of them are scams. That would probably be the SEC's best chance of shutting them down, and issue an order to have those coins delisted.

What the SEC could do is to call a group of developers, gather them in a room, and debate why or why not some network is or isn't technically feasible.

It would be Adam Back and Gregory Maxwell vs. Vitalik Buterin and Gavin Wood in a debate about something like the flaws in Ethereum's Solidity programming language, why POS does/doesn't work, or why Turing completeness in the blockchain is not good.

Their team released a blog three days ago, saying that there weren't any new breaches since June 3rd, more specifically no new cases reported. They also said that total percentage of users that had their coins stolen were less than 0.1% of Atomic app users.

They post it like it's something good because if there's truly a flaw, an exploit, or a backdoor then "0.1%" is just the start of a potentially massive breach.

What I want to know is, when will it be considered a more serious matter, and at what point should the users start suing the developers for negligence?

Greed is actually good to convince more people into HODLing Bitcoin.

 

But the more they get eductated about the protocol, its functions, its value proposition, etc then the faster they come to a realization that HODLing some amount of Bitcoin is an absolute necessity especially with where the modern financial system is going with CBDC.

To put it simply, "CBDC = Tyranny, Bitcoin = Freedom".

There will be people in the forum who will call you names, make you feel stupid, even call you a toxic maximalist for saying such things. Don't listen to those people. Because why design the network to be in such a way that its main value proposition is censorship-resistance if not to be a tool against tyranny?

They mention that, but there's more in that paragraph which possibly could overrule what they have just mentioned.


What they're actually saying is that they can disagree on what everyone considers Bitcoin, and have the lone right to choose what fork is in their ETF. There could be a hash war again and they could choose to side with a forked-altcoin.

Possible trojan horse? What's BlackRock's opinion about E.S.G.?

There are rumors that the leader of Wagner, a para-military group, has started saying that he "vows to topple Russian military leaders". What does this mean? It's a coup! If they topple Putin's regime, they take command of the country. Without Putin, China loses a powerful ally.

Tin-foil hats on, but it's possible that the C.I.A. is behind this. They helped topple the regimes of Saddam Hussien, Gaddafi, and other dictatorial-type regimes, then facilitate in installing a leader who's friendly with the United States.

China's place in the geo-political landscape will be weakened if Wagner is successful because obviously it will be surrounded in all directions.

---

be.open, how are the Russian citizens reacting with Wagner's move?

It is that, but it is also much more than that in my opinion. What use would there be for censorship-resistance, the network's value proposition, if it's to merely use for daily coffee transactions?

Plus POW is more than to prevent double spend. It's also a way to issue the units of Bitcoin to put in circulation, which also incentivizes the miners and it keeps them honest.


One of them is Bitcoin's role in the creation of the ransomware market. It filled a gap where hackers could take advantage and be incentivized of the fact that some software vendors are slow in deploying security updates. As an increasing amount of computers were compromised, the software vendors were forced to deploy patches and software updates more regularly. Bitcoin actually took part in making random computer networks more secure.


No, that was before my Bitcoin journey, but I could already tell that IP to IP transactions are open to attacks like IP-Spoofing and MOTM. It's probably better to leave that decision to the Core Developers.

Wasn't Mike Hearn the developer who spread FUD about Bitcoin's collapse if it didn't hard fork to bigger blocks?

I didn't say that. The network is peer to peer.

What I said was technically, in an onchain transaction, a transaction from a peer to the intended peer doesn't directly go from the peer to the intended peer. It is propagated to the network for all nodes to validate, and to the miners to include them in their blocks.

There are also some instances when a user chooses to ignore the network and relay the transaction directly to the miner to send to the intended receiver.


OK, then in the Lightning Network, it's peer to peer to peer to peer, depending on how many routes.

Bring them in with the smartest people in the room, and with the bureaucats, the administrators, and the legislators also present in the room to learn and understand what technically truly works, and what doesn't in crypto.


They were merely my personal examples, you could also suggest the developers that you want. You want Vitalik? Gavin Wood? Include them in the panel, and let them debate and discuss important topics in crypto such as, Proof of Stake.

To find which cryptocurrencies should be allowed in the hands of every person, shouldn't the SEC or the U.S. Government itself hire and form a panel of experts to consult which of the networks/protocols truly work and which ones are scams? Especially those protocols that are built on too much technical complexity that it's hard to point precisely where it doesn't truly work.

I believe people like Adam Back, Gregory Maxwell, and Peter Todd should be in a panel together to discuss, debate about crypto and educate the bureaucrats.

To that I have and will always say, Buy the DIP and HODL. Don't allow yourself to be the one getting front-run by the billionaires. We should be the people front-running them.

We're in BitcoinTalk, trying to learn more about the network, getting more information, understanding different perspectives, AND debating about the price almost everyday. I believe that should help us find better probabilities to bid close at the best entries.

 

But how the whole system is actually designed shows that it's not just a network for "peer to peer electronic cash" is it?


Have you truly tried to understand how the protocol works and what its implications are? It's not a decentralized PayPal, that I can tell you. It's much much more.

And technically, Bitcoin onchain transactions are not peer to peer. They propagate to the whole network. Lightning transactions, that's peer to peer.

OK, I misunderstood your other post. In reply to that, I can't disagree with your viewpoint. But the design decisions made by Satoshi is what we have. Were there some things that he should have made different? Perhaps, like having a tail emission or something to continue incentivizing the miners in times of low block space demand. But that's a debate for another topic.

That's true, but what the United States might actually be doing is fight China by using macro-economics. Because the longer the Federal Reserve holds interest rates high, it will be problematic for China's economy since domestic demand of the country can't support the economy. They desperately need the U.S. and its allies' to increase demand for Chinese exports which only QE could do. But it won't happen.

 

It's probably China that's forced to cooperate.

By "we", you mean who? I don't think everyone has the same definition, opinion or understanding of Bitcoin. Bitcoin for some people, and the way it's designed, is a kind of tool that can weaken and break down political strongholds, not a tool for personal finance like PayPal.


Please pardon me, what's the context of that? Can you explain the $20.00 tx reference and how it connects to widespread penetration of smartphones, TV, and other electronic goods?


It would definitely lead to decreased usage of Bitcoin for financial transactions onchain, which could be pushed offchain, leaving Ordinals users the more willing onchain participants to pay for the high fees that the miners require to secure the network.

Don't take it personally, and he shouldn't take it personally as well if it happened to him. Because as a Bitcoiner, as yourself "Who should I trust"? The right answer is, NO ONE. Especially when Bitcoin surges to a six digit valuation, you definitely should never trust anyone. Keep your Bitcoin in cold storage and don't talk about it, ever.

I already posted about how wealth doesn't really change the person who has it. It changes the people around the person, and how they act with the person.

It won't matter if the SEC doesn't approve BlackRock's ETF application. Bitcoin will ALWAYS be fine because if you haven't noticed, they tried market manipulation, politics, FUD, network congestion, breaking crypto exchanges, and NONE of them worked to crash the market or to break the network. The Honey Badger simply don't care. We would be very lucky to catch a bid under $20,000.

Bitcoin doesn't need an ETF, but they probably do.

I didn't debate about if it can or cannot. I am saying that based on normal network activity for onchain financial transactions we're seeing today, it can't.


I don't know. Probably? Especially during bull cycles when everyone goes crazy investing in anything? There's no better blockchain to store/secure NFTs than the Bitcoin blockchain.


The question perhaps should be, "Would Ordinals usage increase and therefore increase the demand for block space"? If the answer is "Yes", then I believe the demand for Bitcoin would also increase.


That's the point, because Ordinals users won't mind paying for high fees to inscribe or trade their NFTs.

 

E.T.F. = Exchange Traded Fund

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange-traded_fund


Doubling down are we?

In the context of this topic, the technical differences between an ETF and a Trust matters. Because like what adaseb posted, if BlackRock's application is technically for a Trust like Grayscale's GBTC, then the public should be well-informed to know the differences between the two.