|
Rank: Legendary
Bech32 address: bc1q3f478tsv9qr3ylh85s2gg2y94r5yw99dmy6jcu
Merit earned in the last 120 days: 109
I may not be that active in the gambling boards right now, but I was active there when I was in BlackJack.fun's campaign. I always play Craps in my free time and I try to help those who are willing to learn to play more strategically.
|
|
|
|
Sorry, I don't think it's going to happen. I have had my share of problems with their representative Kruw in the Wasabi thread like some other members here, and have a very bad opinion of him. Still, I don't see Wasabi as a malicious entity that would require it be removed from bitcoin.org. Proper warnings about their activities and partnership with blockchain analysis should be posted though, and I would support that any day of the week. Any time they call themselves a privacy tool should be corrected that they aren't, etc.
THAT'S IT! That's why I believe we're becoming Crypto-Karens because of our insistence of this issue. Cobra won't remove WasabiWallet unless they're confirmed to be nefarious people who are there to co-opt Bitcoin. They're actually not. Wasabi developers merely accepted the trade-off and hired the services of some Blockchain Intelligence Agency, the B.I.A. to protect zkSNACKS and themselves from the authorities. |
|
|
|
Your cautious yet optimistic stance regarding possibility of significant increase in Bitcoin price is quite understandable. As an informed and experienced Bitcoin investor you are well aware of that predicting future price of Bitcoin is very challenging task. Various factors, such as regulatory developments, general state of global economy and prevailing monetary policies, can impact all risky assets including Bitcoin.
If you treat Bitcoin like a treasure worth holding, your mindset will significantly change. First, you will be more focused on accumulating more of it rather than bothering about the price. Indeed, it is very emotionally draining to be worried about Bitcoin price. From personal experience, one tend to look more on the price of Bitcoin when one is so curious about quick profits and not long term HODL. On the other hand, having a futuristic mindset with Bitcoin will eliminate this burden of looking at price always because the focus will be on how to accumulate certain quantity of Bitcoin by a certain year. This is where DCA comes in and am happy a lot of people are already applying same thereby eliminating some of the psychological burden that comes with buying Bitcoin without a well-thought out plan. Nevertheless, we can reasonably anticipate that there are favourable odds for significant price appreciation in 2024, which marks the year of Bitcoin's halving event.
The best we can do at best is to expect as it is up to the market to decide. As a believer in Bitcoin, one must have some level of faith that someday, the price will go up even though we done know when and how. Another thing is also to look at history data and correlate same with previous events and the outcome in the price. This is where the halving comes in. So, I agree with you that the halving next year necessitate optimistic anticipation of rise in price. Personally, I don't have any problem with the idea of ongoingly looking at the BTC price and the value of your overall BTC holdings as compared to fiat, and even part of the sentiment of this thread involves considering the extent to which there might be some value in terms of trying to time dips versus just buying BTC regularly without much if any reference to the price, and I have difficulties considering that both might not be done and/or accomplished without necessarily devolving into trading practices and/or panicking based on BTC price moves. Of course there is. I never understood why you never accepted a simple idea that to buy Bitcoin at a discount gives the buyer more sats for the bid that he/she made. But in a zoomed out, low time preference context, it doesn't matter. We're here to HODL and front-run the billionaires, and in that at least we're on the same side.  |
|
|
|
The closer we are getting to halvening, the higher the chance to see some early bullish movements. And the chance of bearish movements should reduce too, it would be quite strange to see Bitcoin moving to its 16K support when the halvening is half year away. I voted for sideways and think there still many months of sideways ahead, and eventually a bullish breakthrough like in the previous markets. There can also be smaller breakthroughs followed by pullbacks - $32K then $40K after some time and so on.
Plus the more damage the tightening causes, the more Powell does an over-adjustment during the expansion phase, which WILL also make cryptocurrency prices surge like 2016 - 2017's bull cycle. It's also not just about the halving, and that makes Plan B's theory flawed. Scarcity is only one side of the equation, there's also the question WHERE demand will come from. Pledditor made the right conclusion, although we could definitely argue that the halvings also reduce sell pressure. I continue to believe that #bitcoin's 4 year cycles are just coincidences and have little to do with the halvenings. Global M2 money supply has actually been having its own "4 year cycles" as of late, and those cycles have been reflected in most risk assets, including bitcoin  https://twitter.com/pledditor/status/1698936311602614449 |
|
|
|
I learned something new again! Thank you, ser, you're an asset in BitcoinTalk. I'll do some more reading, and I'll definiitely point Ordinals users to that information the next time someone argues for censorship-resistance of dick pics and fart sounds in the Bitcoin blockchain. It's not that I support the debate that Ordinals is an attack, it's that now I learned that Ordinals is poorly implemented, WITHOUT testing. |
|
|
|
|
Username: Wind_FURY
BTC Segwit address: bc1q89fyh8rg5p6mu8jw96edf8qdwq3knj0endsq5y
|
|
|
|
It's Ordinals.  There are issues with this approach, and this is quite serious in the current state of the network. If people use Ordinals, then they stop regular users from making on-chain payments. As long as you don't have transaction joining, it is a choice between putting Ordinals, and putting other payment-related transactions. If you have only payment-related transactions, then you can for example apply cut-through. Then, it doesn't matter that Alice send something to Bob, and later Bob sent it to Charlie. If after 20 transactions, it could be simplified into a transfer from Alice to Zack, then all that matters, is the amount of coins received in the end. But this is not true in case of Ordinals, because if they are cut in the middle, then you practically lose that data. Also, I wonder how Ordinals will respond to the cut-through. Because this method is something that can be used to specifically kill Ordinals, while leaving regular payments unaffected. However, as I told you previously, "nobody tested that", so I wonder what will happen, when some on-chain optimizations will kick in. So far, MimbleWimble was resistant to Ordinals, which means that weapon could be used to hit two birds with one stone: improve scalability, while killing Ordinals at the same time, because then on-chain users could at least have any weapon to compete with them. Not to mention that such approach will effectively force Ordinals' users to move into some second layers, exactly as they should from the very beginning. Because the problem with them is not that they want to put some data. The problem is that they want to store everything on-chain, and cut-through could be used to push them in a better direction. I'm confused. What's the "cut-through? But from my viewpoint it's simple, which might probably also be the same as the miners' viewpoint. - Because the block size is regulated, and because there's a fee market, users will merely compete for block space, pay the fee they're willing to pay, and use the network in whatever way they want. No hard forks, no soft fork, just the incentive structure and the economics of the network.
One of the "Something Else" might probably be to encourage and stimulate "the other uses" of Bitcoin's base layer to increase the demand for block space.
In case of Ordinals, it is just "Enormous Block Size Increases" path. Only in that case, you can actually store all of them on the first layer. They are not resistant to cut-through. Also, if you encourage people to put more things, then you will only flood mempools. Only a fraction of transactions will confirm, and obviously fees will rise, but then, implementing cut-through will be needed immediately, to transact on-chain at all. ELI-5 the cut-through? Users sending transactions directly to the miners? |
|
|
|
1. Enormous Block Size Increases: this is what BCH community did, as well as a lot of other altcoins. You can see, where they are now, and make some conclusions, based on that. 2. Violate 21M Coin Limit: this topic was raised some time ago, you can read here, how it was commented: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5405755.03. >50% Miner Fee-Revenues Come From Merged Mining: you can see some federations (also known as "somewhat centralized" sidechains, like Liquid or RSK). We don't have fully decentralized sidechains yet, there were some proposals, like BIP-300 and BIP-301, but because first attempts were rejected, I guess people will try activating sidechains in other ways, or switch to some entirely different ideas, if all proposals will be killed. But also, it could be the fourth way, called "Something Else". I don't know exactly, what it could be. We can only guess, for example it could be first-layer non-interactive cut-through, that could make it "cheap for users", while being "expensive in blocks" at the same time, when you combine N transactions paying single satoshis each, into a single transaction paying N satoshis that will finally land in a block. But it could be something completely different, it is just based on guessing and predicting the future. One of the "Something Else" might probably be to encourage and stimulate "the other uses" of Bitcoin's base layer to increase the demand for block space. High demand = high fees = miners happy. Plus it doesn't need a hard fork/soft fork. It will perhaps be the lesser of "all evils". It's Ordinals. |
|
|
|
I didn't mean "laughable" in that context, because from an outside perspective, "trade" requires that everyone accept the currency being used, but it would be problematic, and "laughable", in that what if Saudi Arabia needs to buy Chinese exports? Would the Chinese exporters accept the Rupees? What could be the other uses of the Rupee? Can it be used to take positions in U.S./European based investments? It's going to be cumbersome, and it would definitely be easier to convert the Rupees to U.S. Dollars upon receipt because it's what everyone accepts. Including China.
You are right, there are advantages to using the dollar as the world's universal reserve currency, which is why the dollar is so widely accepted around the world as the world's universal reserve currency. Unfortunately, the United States began to abuse its privileges by imposing unilateral sanctions right and left - which is why even in the recent past, loyal US allies are thinking about alternative options to reduce the political risks of using the dollar and not be left completely without money for already delivered oil. That's true, but it doesn't change the fact that the U.S. Dollar is still the best in Spendability, Saveability and Liquidity. Therefore it made Saudi Arabia's acceptance of the Indian Rupee a losing trade than an advantageous one. They should have asked payment in U.S. Dollars.Saudi Arabia is a sovereign state and they have the right to decide to whom they sell their oil and in what currency to take payment. One million barrels for Saudi Arabia is not that big of a deal to do a test trade in Indian rupees just to set a precedent and show the US that a half-century-old agreement to exclusively trade oil in dollars has lost its relevance due to changes in the geopolitical landscape. No one was suggesting what Saudi Arabia should, or shouldn't do. I'm merely making a debate for the fact that trade requires efficiency, or else it won't be sustainable. And what's more capital efficient than using the U.S. Dollar for internationial trade? The BRICS nations will either be converting each other's currencies to the U.S. Dollar, or print their own currency like Europe. BUT issuing their own currency would be repeating the same cycle as the U.S. Dollar and the Euro all over again. If they want to break the United States' political stronghold, you know the technology is here and it's working. |
|
|
|
It's a centralized service, and you're free to criticize. But dishonest? Ser, it's literally there in print. It's definitely a trade-off.
"Trade-off" means you gain something in exchange for sacrificing something else. Coinjoins do not require a user to forfeit custody of their data and their coins, we can confirm that "mixing sites" are scams since they force their users to give up their data and their custody for no benefit. In the context of trade-offs in my posts, I was trying to make everyone see it from what I believe is zkSNACK's viewpoint. I'll now add you in my ignore list. I was the only person in the topic who tried to defend Wasabi's trade-off when everyone else was throwing criticisms against you.
I know, the first time you heard about Wasabi you were insisting that it would be a terrible idea to coinjoin since it would include funds from criminals: Something to think about.
It might be safer to leave them alone. Tumbling with Coinjoin and mixers might mix your coins with the coins of criminals, black hat hackers, and dark market drug dealers.
But think about it, tumblers and coinjoins are not cheap, and who would be willing to pay for them to keep their privacy?
I believe an ordinary user would be digging himself into a bigger hole if he mixes his coins with what usually would be the criminals' coins.
Wasn't there always an open debate about taint and Bitcoin's fungibilty? Bitcoin may seem fungible within its own protocol, but external entities are applying “taint” information to coins, making Bitcoin infungible in practice. Most large exchanges are automatically performing risk assessment on incoming customer coins. While it’s easy to claim Bitcoin also has obvious plausible deniability, that does’t matter to Coinbase, Circle, Cash App, etc. They are applying taint with enough confidence to close your account. https://medium.com/bitcoinerrorlog/bitcoin-is-not-fungible-should-it-be-620a28f3f8b1 |
|
|
|
No, IF you're a criminal who used the service, THEN by law, as a centralized entity they're forced to hold your coins. NOT TAKE, hold. Mere trade-offs taken by Mixtum.
Framing loss of custody as a "trade-off" is dishonest since there is no benefit to the user for having their data collected and coins taken. It's a centralized service, and you're free to criticize. But dishonest? Ser, it's literally there in print. It's definitely a trade-off. Ad Hominem, just answer the question. Plus I was never informed that ChipMixer scammed its users, nor was I accepted in their campaign. I'll now add you in my ignore list. I was the only person in the topic who tried to defend Wasabi's trade-off when everyone else was throwing criticisms against you. @Kruw
I am really glad you are showing this immature and childish side of you.
How do we verify that it's really him? |
|
|
|
I didn't mean "laughable" in that context, because from an outside perspective, "trade" requires that everyone accept the currency being used, but it would be problematic, and "laughable", in that what if Saudi Arabia needs to buy Chinese exports? Would the Chinese exporters accept the Rupees? What could be the other uses of the Rupee? Can it be used to take positions in U.S./European based investments? It's going to be cumbersome, and it would definitely be easier to convert the Rupees to U.S. Dollars upon receipt because it's what everyone accepts. Including China.
You are right, there are advantages to using the dollar as the world's universal reserve currency, which is why the dollar is so widely accepted around the world as the world's universal reserve currency. Unfortunately, the United States began to abuse its privileges by imposing unilateral sanctions right and left - which is why even in the recent past, loyal US allies are thinking about alternative options to reduce the political risks of using the dollar and not be left completely without money for already delivered oil. That's true, but it doesn't change the fact that the U.S. Dollar is still the best in Spendability, Saveability and Liquidity. Therefore it made Saudi Arabia's acceptance of the Indian Rupee a losing trade than an advantageous one. They should have asked payment in U.S. Dollars. |
|
|
|
Like WasabiWallet, [banned mixer] merely accepted the trade-offs to protect their company from the tyrannical nature of the government, AND protect their users from having their UTXOs mixed with "tainted outputs". YOU should understand WHY they did it most of all.
You don't protect your users by collecting their data and taking their coins. No, IF you're a criminal who used the service, THEN by law, as a centralized entity they're forced to hold your coins. NOT TAKE, hold. Mere trade-offs taken by Mixtum.
Bitcoiners deserve better than being scammed by mixing sites. They deserve open source software that never requires you to trust anyone: Wasabi Wallet.
You say it's a scam. But has it scammed? I said it to people who were talking bad about Wasabi before, and I'll tell you the same. If you don't like or trust a software/service, then the solution is simple - Don't use it. |
|
|
|
Excellent explanation. After already stealing coins from Bitcointalk users with their two previous mixing sites "Chipmixer" and "Whirlwind.Money", BlackHatCoiner and o_e_l_e_o are being paid up to $6 per post to lure victims from Bitcointalk into their newest "Mixing Site" scam, [banned mixer]
Oh so you have a crystal ball and special powers and you know this website is a scam?! I thought before that some of the things you said made sense, but with this statement you pretty much ruined your reputation. I never went on witch hunting campaign against Wasabi wallet, but I also don't support them working with company that supports censorship on blokchain. You have zero profs for your claims and if you can accuse someone for publicly promoting a ''scam'' that never happened, than I can also say that you are paid by Wasabi&zkSNACKs for promoting and defending them. Unless you provide some evidence I will have to ignore you for spreading fake news. Ignore me then, I don't care. This thread is for Bitcoiners who want to preserve their privacy, not for people who want to trust third parties: THE "[banned mixer]" SCAM SAYS IT "runs a thorough background check of incoming funds through a proprietary algorithm" AND "reserves the right to suspend or terminate access to services at any time at its own discretion, with or without reasons, with or without notification assuming no responsibility whatsoever" AND CAN "suspend or terminate services over an actual or suspected violation of these Terms and Conditions".Like WasabiWallet, [banned mixer] merely accepted the trade-offs to protect their company from the tyrannical nature of the government, AND protect their users from having their UTXOs mixed with "tainted outputs". YOU should understand WHY they did it most of all. |
|
|
|
I would be lying to myself if I would say that I'm not excited that BlackRock wants to be involved in Bitcoin and use it as an investment vehicle. BUT at the same time, we truly can't deny the FACT that custodial entities, if large enough, could be very dangerous for the future of the network.
ETFs are a slightly different concept to conventional custodians, though. They are effectively issuing shares based on the assets that they hold, rather than accepting deposits of the asset in question from their clients. And because they don't take deposits, it's unlikely they could engage in anything resembling fractional reserve, so that's not really a concern like it is with Bitcoin exchanges and webwallets. Perhaps they are, but we are talking about BlackRock, one of the worldwide largest asset managers. It has ownership rights to most U.S. banks, own shares in most of U.S. pharma, they adminster 10% of all major stocks worldwide, they own shares in most of mass media companies in the U.S., and it is also the biggest asset manager that owns shares in major tech companies.  The total assets it manages is probably half of the United States GDP. Plus it is now a major share-holder in 4 out of 5 largest Bitcoin mining companies, https://finbold.com/blackrock-is-a-major-shareholder-in-4-of-the-5-largest-bitcoin-miners/I'm excited for Bitcoin-the-investment, but concerned for Bitcoin-the-network. |
|
|
|
To be honest, I see a lot of conflicting answers in this thread, and apparently some people don't understand the idea of rewarding members based on merit. This concept is based on encouraging users to publish quality posts. So that users have an incentive to reach the point where they will receive the maximum rate (this is why it is important to have several levels of rewards).
The peculiarity is that when a user crosses the mark of 3000 merits (mostly), he stops thinking about merits, so his posts are organic and such users are very interesting to managers. In addition, as soon as the user begins to position participation in the campaign as a hobby and not as an income, he immediately becomes desirable for any manager (believe me, this is very noticeable).
I want to add that no project will invest resources in marketing initiatives if there are no tangible results, and there will be none if the published posts are lost in mega threads (after all, the highest quality discussion fits on the first two pages of the thread).
Actual merit or the "merit-points" posters send and receive? If it's the merit system, then the problem is, it might only incentivize people who are better at playing forum-politics, and it might also make the sincerity of the posts more fake. Everything will be based on merely how much merit you can make in a week. Why not incentivize those posters who share actual ideas/insights, AND who consistently go over the 25 or 30-post limit at the same time. Most of the Green Zone members are qualified, why not start with them? |
|
|
|
Current balance: 0.22264179 BTC (The balance is enough to cover more than one week)  Once there are refill, I will update. Wallet refilled. Current balance: 0.35137179 BTC We will have a new payroll structure from next week. I will announce it in the next few days. In summary, Green Zone will be removed and Merit Rank will be introduced.
Two parallel questions to get community feedback.- Maximum 50 posts per week is good enough or 40 per week is better? - Would you like to have $250 or $200 per week? I am not considering opinion from average quality posters but posters who do not chase weekly maximum limits, who posts because they shares valuable insights and guidance. I would like to have opinion from current Green Zone, Legendary and many other prominent bitcointalk members. Please share your thoughts. Cheers, It's probably better to make it "by invitation" only, just like your Green Zone system. Perhaps invite the high-quality posters who also happen to go consistently over the 25-post limit? It would maintain the quality of the campaign, and give added incentives to those people who truly deseve it. |
|
|
|
I don't get it: on the one hand, Bitcoin users are very much into "not your keys, not your coins". But on the other hand, "we" all want an ETF to pump the price. Which one is it? Encourage people to pay someone else to (promise to) hold Bitcoins for them, or encourage people to hold their own Bitcoins?
Why not both? Why do we have to stick in one no matter what? Sure, encouraging people holding their own bitcoin is good, but apparently, the regulatory oversight and the convenience an ETF provide outweighs the benefit of doing self-custody for institutional investors. Let's accept it already. Regulations aren't in favor of the Bitcoin spirit. If we truly like the concept of a decentralized, denationalized, free enterprise money, then accepting the governmental compromises is inevitable. Achieving the desired outcome, which is more or less to make Bitcoin official, involves sacrifices. Otherwise we will continuously remain the unofficial, non-systemic currency. I would be lying to myself if I would say that I'm not excited that BlackRock wants to be involved in Bitcoin and use it as an investment vehicle. BUT at the same time, we truly can't deny the FACT that custodial entities, if large enough, could be very dangerous for the future of the network. |
|
|
|
This recent development should be troubling to the US but they are dismissing it as if nothing is happening. It is getting to a very critical point when they will lose total control. But even now I wonder what is it they can do. India and the UAE are both members of the BRICS. The process has started of replacing the dollar as the world reserve currency to multiple currencies.
Lol. How dumb are you? It's pretty damn evident that you have issues with the USA which is why you are stating such nonsensical stuff. Process of replacing the dollar? Extremely silly statement. The dollar is actually growing stronger with time while the rupee is growing weaker. Think hard! All fiat currencies weaken over time, some faster, some slower. If the rate of weakening of the fiat currency is not too fast, it is quite suitable for settlements for exported goods on one simple condition - if you intend to import goods or services for an equivalent amount. This is how bilateral currency swaps in national currencies work, which are practiced between BRICS member countries. The exchange rates of national currencies are temporarily frozen and a bilateral transaction takes place. If there is no significant imbalance in the trade balance between countries, then everything goes smoothly even without the participation of the dollar. I will explain with an example. Let's say India wants to buy a million barrels of oil from the UAE and pay for them in Indian rupees. UAE Indian rupees are not particularly needed because it is not a freely convertible currency. But India can offer goods or services for an equivalent amount in return. In fact, the transaction turns into a barter one, where fiat currencies are involved only for the convenience of mutual settlements, but are not used as a store of value. In particular, India can offer in return some medicines or outsourced programming services or something else. That's actually going to be a very problematic situation for Saudi Arabia, if not a laughable one. Rupees used like mere tokens in an amusement park. I don't see anything problematic, let alone laughable, in this situation. What could be wrong with the development of balanced bilateral trade relations between the two countries? India exports offshore programming services every year for what seems to be about $400 billion, why not trade some of that for a million barrels of oil from Saudi Arabia, or does Saudi Arabia need programming services at all? I think that Saudi Arabia is still buying them, just paying for it with US dollars, which it receives for the sale of its oil. Why is the US dollar in this scheme, is it not an extra link that only imposes a few percent of additional overhead on conversion and does not carry any useful semantic load? I didn't mean "laughable" in that context, because from an outside perspective, "trade" requires that everyone accept the currency being used, but it would be problematic, and "laughable", in that what if Saudi Arabia needs to buy Chinese exports? Would the Chinese exporters accept the Rupees? What could be the other uses of the Rupee? Can it be used to take positions in U.S./European based investments? It's going to be cumbersome, and it would definitely be easier to convert the Rupees to U.S. Dollars upon receipt because it's what everyone accepts. Including China. It would have been better if the BRICS nations agreed to use an apolitical, impartial, decentralized network/currency for their international trade needs. If only there was something like it invented, no?
It's too hard to implement. Theoretically, it would be possible to use bitcoin for these purposes, and there is a certain economic sense in this, but the governments of the BRICS countries are unlikely to take this step for political reasons. Then the U.S. Dollar will win the 4D Chess game. The design decisions made behind Bitcoin makes it the perfect instrument to break the West's political stronghold in my opinion. |
|
|
|
silly conversations i see even people that have been in the community for 6+ years:
"the coins are yours even if they are not confirmed/settled to your key"
"bitcoin payments happen in seconds and can handle million transactions a second"
"bitcoin relies on middlemen to pass payments along a route"
"bitcoin has more then 8 decimals"
"to use bitcoin you need to choose a partner"
to me these people are talking about other networks pretending to be bitcoin. which then makes other newbies have a bad experience when they see bitcoin is not like how these first idiots explain it to them
"Tell me you're complaining about the Lightning Network, without telling me". To make it clear for newbies, nothing in the Lightning Network is "pretending" to be Bitcoin. What are being sent and received are signed transactions by all participants of a channel. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
