Bitcoin Forum
May 22, 2024, 11:42:42 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 ... 423 »
1  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Tornado Cash Developer Was Convicted and jailed on: Today at 05:53:56 AM
The hell are you talking about? Decentralized? Are you supporting people who facilitated so many criminals to laundering their billions of money? There are thousands of people's life savings there. It's kinda stupid to talk about decentralization when it's harmed many people.  [...] They deserved it. It was not even attacking. Tornado cash deserved it. It shall be 100 years rather than only 5 years.
Tornado cash was a tool which could be misused by criminals, but had also legitimate privacy usage.
With the same logic, you could say: "There are so many deaths due to car accidents! And cars were even used for terrorist attacks! Car manufacturers should all go jailed!"
Think again.

I don't know the absolute details from the case, but from what media reported, evidence of actual collaboration between the Tornado Cash developers and criminal groups is very thin. There were some mentions in internal communication that could be interpreted as to tolerate criminal use. But yeah ... you can "criminally use" a lot of things. For example, you can use computers and the Internet to distribute child abuse imagery. Should computer manufacturers and Internet providers also go jailed?

The only misbehaviour that could be attributed to the Tornado cash devs is that they ran the mixer as a service taking fees, and depending on the jurisdiction they were operating, they could have had to register a license for their business. But first that would never justify such a long sentence, and second Pertsev was actually not in control anymore of the service when they arrested him, as it was run by a DAO.

More on that topic is here: https://cointelegraph.com/news/tornado-cash-verdict-crypto-industry

Only hope I have is that the court where he was sentenced seemed to have been a minor provincial court, and Pertsev is appealing the sentence. A better informed judge could perhaps rule in a different way, as basic human rights are touched here.

Very expected considering we are talking about the United Stated
No, it's in the Netherlands. There is another case about other developers in the US though, so you probably confused both cases. FWIW, the US protects software development as a basic right (freedom of speech). US authorities also have clarified that at least their case isn't about developing open source tools.
2  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why is Bitcoin the Dumbest Thing Ever Invented on: Today at 03:45:45 AM
Ok, so let's debunk this once and for all time Smiley

Using the (a bit questionable, but serviceable) postal service analogy, we accrue value in this system in three stages.

Stage 1: Bitcoin's creation and its USPs

The "postal service" isn't just "a simple postal service". It's a postal service that has qualities no other postal service ever had. The boxes will reach the destination in about 10 minutes, no matter where in the world (=block interval). "Boxes" can never get lost because once they are accepted by the system (=confirmations) everybody knows all the time where they are (=public blockchain record), nobody can steal a box (=double spend protection) and the postal service can also not decide to reject a box just because they don't like the sender, the receiver or the value that is inside (=censorship protection). The boxes will also always (as soon as they're accepted) reach the receiver, even if the system doesn't know who the sender and the receiver is. And while once a sender blew up the post office with a "bomb" inside a box (=2010 value overflow), the post office was able to repair it instantly and in 14 years it never happened again, so we can almost safely say it won't repeat.

Stage 2: First boxes are filled

The postal service, due to the USPs named in stage 1, start to get usage when someone puts value in a box. It's important to clarify when value is put inside a box: not when someone uses Bitcoin to make a transaction, and also not when coins are mined. Mining and transacting are still "empty boxes". The system only accrues value when someone accepts the Bitcoins in exchange for something. These Bitcoins are then pegged to this "something". First, such pegs will be private contracts. The peg will only exist for the sender and the receiver. Basically, it means that once in a while the boxes will contain something. But the value is still not clear. They work like NFTs today. Let's say this was the "Pizza era" (Happy Pizza Day Smiley ) The pizza transaction was basically a number of pizzas divided into 10.000 boxes.

Stage 3: Boxes get a value (Bitcoin price)

A community begins to form around the postal service. More and more boxes are filled with value when people are accepting Bitcoin either for goods and services or for different currencies or other "assets". The community begins to publish the Stage 2 contracts on the web (=exchange sites, Coinmarketcap ...). This means that people already know what to expect when they use the postal service and how much value is approximately inside of each box. We have now an almost unified box price. And we have an ecosystem of people, companies and other groups willing to put value in the boxes (=pay fiat/sell a good or service for Bitcoin).

What's now exactly inside the box (A box is 1 BTC)?

It's actually not that simple. I would describe it as "the 21 millionth part of the ecosystem" described in Stage 3. If this ecosystem is large enough, then the single box can be valued at $70000. But if the ecosystem shrinks or grows, then the value can also shrink or grow.

You'll say that this value can never be calculated? And why is it so volatile?

First, in the fiat system the value is also not fixed. Let's say a bank creates a loan of $100 and the Central Bank's issues a 100 dollar bill. But one week later speculation makes the currency's value go down. What's now inside the 100 dollar bill? A smaller part of the loan of the bank? Just like fiat, the "box value" can also change with speculation. It can even go to near-zero like in countries like Argentina.

Second, the volatility is just the consequence of the difficult calculation. As we don't know how much value is in the whole ecosystem, we use hints. For example, when the ETFs were approved, people were expecting the ecosystem to grow because new investor classes (US institutional investors) was able to put value in the boxes. This was a hint causing people to value of the boxes no longer $30-40k but instead $50-70k.

So even if the question "what's Bitcoin's value?" is not very simple to answer, there is actually also nothing very mysterious.

@OP: How would you describe collectibles in your system (e.g. coins and bills which are worth lots of $ due to a failure of the printing/minting machine in the numismatic community, stamps, art ...)? Their nature can actually be described in a similar way. But only Bitcoin has "Stage 1", i.e. a real set of advantages over other asset classes.
3  Local / Altcoins (Deutsch) / Re: Regulierte Altcoin-Finanzprodukte - Liste & Diskussion on: Today at 12:04:37 AM
Vielleicht schon diesen Monat.
Glaube ich eher nicht, siehe diesen Artikel. Es könnte noch Wochen oder Monate dauern, bis auch die S1-Formulare durch sind. Aber dann kommen die US-Ether ETFs natürlich auch in diese Liste Smiley

Ich bin aber dann wirklich gespannt wo die in den USA die Grenze zwischen "commodity" und "security" genau gezogen wird. Anscheinend scheint einiges darauf hinzudeuten, dass "gestakte Coins" (nicht PoS-Coins allgemein, sondern PoS-Coins, die aktiv gestakt werden) als Securities bewertet werden sollen, während Coins, die nicht gestakt werden (möglicherweise auch solche, die privat gestaked werden, also außerhalb von Crypto-Plattformen) als "commodities" durchgehen werden.

Staking ist sowieso bei ETFs ein Thema für sich. Der oben verlinkte Artikel spricht davon: Wenn die ETF-Anbieter staken würden, gäbe es immerhin ein minimales Risiko, dass irgendwann Funds "geslasht" werden, weil man die falsche Blockchain-Spitze gewählt hat. Wer hätte dann dieses Risiko zu verantworten? Spot ETFs sind ja Sondervermögen. Ich kann mir vorstellen, dass wegen dieser Frage der Fidelity-Vorschlag für einen Staking-ETF abgelehnt wurde und daher Staking in den upgedateten Vorschlag rausgenommen wurde.

Ein Spot-ETF für einen PoS-Coin ohne Staking würde aber strukturell "underperformen" gegenüber einem Produkt, das staken darf, wie z.B: Ether selbst (oder ETPs, bei denen das Risiko beim Unternehmen liegt) ...

Übrigens: Falls jemand Quellen kennt, wo die Inflows/Outflows/AUMs der hier genannten Altcoinprodukte als Charts dargestellt werden, sind diese gern gesehen.
4  Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion on: May 21, 2024, 11:46:55 PM
More confirmation of the coming Ethereum ETF approval as VanEck Spot ETH ETF has been listed on their website under ticker symbol ETHV. I’m very curious to see how these ETF’s handle Ethereum staking. Will the funds be growing the amount of ETH per share or will they be paying a dividend to shareholders? This is getting interesting…
Seems there won't be any staking, see this article about the last Fidelity upgrade.

In the article they mention that staking may introduce additional risks because funds could in theory get slashed. If I'm drawing the correct conclusions, this means that a "spot ETF" and "staking" are generally not compatible (at least in the US).
5  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Runes are now worthless and have killed Ordinals too on: May 21, 2024, 09:48:07 PM
But the reason was because that's how founders of these companies, or simply creators of these tokens, could get rich quick, and also fund their company.
But you say an important complementary point to what I said about people manufacturing utility (by creating a solution and then searching for the problem) -- that they also completely lost the plot with Ethereum as a "supercomputer". I agree, they should have just used Ether (gas) to run everything.
I'd like to add a point to this discussion, because I disagree a little bit with you both. Smiley

In general I think the use case to fund a company with a premined token, be it on Bitcoin (less recommendable, but I could see some reasons for Bitcoin-specific apps) or on Ethereum or whatever, is not bad per se. It's often hard for companies to get fresh money when they start, above all in parts of the world where loans are not easy to obtain, and the opportunity to create something similar to a "share" on a crypto platform can actually make sense. Above all of course for crypto-related projects, but not only for them.

Cryptocurrencies still are bad for handling the "lending" use case: If you lend BTC to someone and the BTC price spikes or takes a dip, then one of both parties will get an extra benefit. Thus "lending" is mainly a thing in DeFi protocols where people basically use that to leverage trading between different shitcoins, but you wouldn't use a BTC lending platform for a credit to build your house, or to fund your company.

Tokens, on the other hand, are one way to manage "lending" for projects, because this allows them to offer a "value" independent from the volatility of existing cryptocurrencies. Of course the "cleanest" way to do that is to create an utility token which can be traded 1=1 for a service they provide. But sometimes this is not possible in the early stages. But in general, I think this instrument can be handled in a correct way.

But of course @buwaytress you are right about the impression that several of these project searched for a problem what didnt't exist. And some of course were - and still are - outright scams. The challenge is of course: how can investors be protected from that? For some it's like gambling, I think those investing in meme tokens know exactly what they can lose. But some get scammed by projects which look "serious".

Perhaps some kind of "transparency standard" for serious token projects could be elaborated, e.g. with voluntary "quarterly reports", a "prospectus" and so on (no, a "roadmap" is not enough Smiley ). In some jurisdictions I know this is actually already mandatory for security tokens (including EU from July on), but I think projects from other countries should embrace this kind of transparency too.
6  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Runes are now worthless and have killed Ordinals too on: May 21, 2024, 08:07:31 PM
I was thinking about making OP_FALSE OP_IF ... OP_ENDIF non-standard, since BRC-20 usually put data less than 100 bytes.
I would not be happy with such a direct blocking, but I think I made my point clear already in other threads.

Of course projects using BRC-20 could now simply switch to Runes (as they could have done before to platforms like OpenAssets, Counterparty, RGB ...). But I think it's better to simply let BRC-20 die alone. I don't discard there could be some waves still but judging from what we've seen in the past weeks since the halving they will be much smaller and do no harm.

Such a measure would be considered arbitrary if there was no technical reason other to block a standard some do not like. Include me of course among those that don't like BRC-20 Smiley, but I think Bitcoin never should target any standard, only real vulnerabilities. So I personally would only support such a "direct block" if the OP_FALSE / OP_IF -> OP_ENDIF combination is really technically dangerous, allowing really malicious scripts, but is that a thing in Bitcoin Script? (I'm not knowledgeable enough to answer this question, but IMO the harm which can be done only is related to that the script size limit can be circunvented).

AFAIK from what I have read in the developer mailing list they don't consider this script to be a "bug" which should be "fixed". Except Luke-Jr, of course, but I think with his datacarriersize method he implemented in Bitcoin Knots, he found a reasonable way for nodes to block Ordinals as "data transactions" if they don't want to relay them.

I think such hype wouldn't last long. And i don't see any problem with miner/pool including non-standard TX, assuming they charge premium cost for it. Miner would earn more money, while Ordinal create less spam.
Possibly you're right. What I fear is however that with such a measure you could paradoxically help BRC-20 to keep alive; they could find a way to transact them with a method not including an Inscription. And those having created them in 2023 and early would feel rewarded to be in possession of such "rare" objects. It's only a bad feeling I have, of course it's not sure if this will happen.

Reading the posts saying Runes are stupid.
For me personally, Runes as a technology isn't that stupid. In the OP I'm referring more to the model to create a token whose only value lies in having a "creative name" and which can then be "minted" by anyone.

But Runes can also be used for things that make more sense, of course, like as a game currency, or as a crowdfunding platform. However, it would not make so much sense to create this kind of currency on Bitcoin due to the fees. The "magic" of Runes is much related to the same (imo stupid) "value proposition" than in BRC-20: having a "valuable" token on the "OG" Bitcoin blockchain. Very much like a NFT, but in a minimally fungible way.

By the way, Runes could be probably transferred via LN if their protocol includes timelocks and hashlocks. I don't know the protocol in detail however. This is something which can be added but adds some complexity to the algorithm (basically they need either a hard-coded way to do those locks or an own "Script language").
7  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Runes are now worthless and have killed Ordinals too on: May 21, 2024, 12:32:52 AM
I hope I'm wrong about this, but something tells me it won't be long before the next incarnation of snake-oil is being hyped up by sleazy little grifters.
There will be still a lot of snake oil, but my hope is that it wouldn't again concentrate on the Bitcoin chain, at least not on mainchain. Between 2014 (Counterparty/Omni wave) and 2023 (BRC-20 wave) there was a 9 year stretch where token projects weren't popular at all on the Bitcoin platform. And with good reasons: With the exception of a little extra security there is almost no reason not to use a blockchain like Ethereum or Solana - or even LTC or Doge - for a token project.

Maybe it's time to make most/all Ordinals TX non-standard, since there'll be less people bother opposing to such idea.
At least I wouldn't oppose thinking now about limiting the script size to the same value as for non-Taproot scripts.

A potential side effect however could be that the bigger Ordinals get more "rare" then as it would be difficult to create new ones. This could potentially generate another hype, although at least the blockchains wouldn't suffer that much because basically only transfers would happening. The problem is if miners cooperate with Ordinals firms, to launch even "more rare" collections.

Because in a next bear market that will last like 2 years, these tokens will lose likely more than 90% or 95% of its price.
I think you're too optimistic here still. Smiley Even relatively "well-made" altcoins lose often 90% in a "crypto-winter" style bear market. ORDI lost already 50%, in the middle of a bull market.

And one month later they keep minting them, reminds me of gold miners digging for gold 100 years after the mine was depleted. [...] Interestingly enough the more the fees go down the more cheap it becomes for everyone to get some of these, creating an artificial floor[...]
This is why it surprises me that we already see such a big decline. I seriously thought Runes hype would last a little longer. Of course they have not disappeared and still there is significant minting/etching, but the difference to BRC-20, where the initial wave didn't end until at least 6 months later is striking.
8  Local / Deutsch (German) / Re: El Salvador on: May 20, 2024, 07:03:51 PM
Wollte dazu noch schreiben, dass Planstädte in Lateinamerika auch in jüngster Vergangenheit nichts Ungewöhnliches sind. Ältere Beispiele wie Brasília (ca. 1960) kennt ja jeder, vielleicht noch jemand Ciudad Guayana (1980er Jahre) in Venezuela. Aber in etwas kleinerem Maßstab gibt es auch in den letzten 20 Jahren noch einige, z.B. La Punta in Argentinien (2004). Daher halte ich die Bitcoin City nicht für unrealistisch. Auch wenn die Staatskassen oft klamm sind: In vielen Ländern hält der Staat größere Ländereien, die oft für neue Sozialwohnungsviertel verwendet werden, also kann einfach auch mal ein Architekt mit einem etwas ungewöhnlicheren Bebauungsplan betraut werden ...

Wo ich mir aber fast sicher bin ist dass sie weit weniger futuristisch aussehen wird als auf den Renderings. Den Bitcoin-Kreisel und die kreisförmige Gestaltung insgesamt kann ich mir aber gut vorstellen. Solche Designs gibt es in Lateinamerika auch ab und zu, z.B. der Stadtteil Colonia Federal in Mexico City oder ein neueres Beispiel, Mapu Ngefu, eine Vorstadt von Puerto Madryn (Argentinien).

Wirkliche News zu Bitcoin City scheint es leider derzeit aber nicht zu geben.

Eine Aktualisierung zum möglichen Chivo-Wallet-Desaster: Die Regierung hat vor einiger Zeit dementiert, dass das Datenleck mit Chivo zu tun hat. Von einigen Seiten wurde stattdessen eine Impfdatenbank verantwortlich gemacht. Der Chivo-Code dagegen stamme aus einem Geldautomaten. Dies wurde allerdings dann wieder von einem Sicherheitsexperten auf X bezweifelt, der angab, dass die geleakten Daten mit den KYC-Registrierungsdaten von Chivo übereinstimmen. Also was wirklich geschah, ist bisher unklar (diskutiert wurde das Thema natürlich im spanischen Unterforum).
9  Other / Meta / Re: The effect the mixer ban has had on the forum. on: May 19, 2024, 11:35:28 PM
On the contrary, dear d5000, your definition of a forum is too broad. Are you comparing TikTok where people show their faces and do little dances with this anonymous forum? Or Instagram which is a social network where people show idyllic lives? On Instagram or TikTok there are hardly any discussions.
Fair enough Smiley I was more or less focusing on the technical side, and both forums and social networks and video-sharing platforms are simply "aggregators of public HTML messages". There are some differences of course, and as you point out, there may be different kinds of usage. But at least X (Twitter), Reddit and Facebook, for me, are forums.

The main difference between forums and social networks is anonymity, and that the forum is written-only.
Anonymity is a feature of many forums but not all. I don't remember concrete examples now, but I have seen forums (more in the 00s and 10s) that had implemented a "real name" policy, even if otherwise they looked like your standard phpBB instance.

And even the "written-only" requirement can be challenged. The user who has the highest post count on Bitcointalk is ChartBuddy, a bot who only posts images Smiley

Anyway, I don't want to insist on that. The point here was to discuss the possibility to create a decentralized version of Bitcointalk if theymos wasn't able to continue to run the forum. And I think in this case, a forum with anonymous accounts would make most sense, because of the privacy-friendly nature of the Bitcoin community. I don't think that this would be a requirement stopping people to join because it's a "thing of the past". But I could see many features from Steemit, but also from X or Facebook enrich this hypothetical post-Bitcointalk forum to make it even more comfortble to use. Steemit was also anonymous and mostly focused on the "written word".

I also think such a hypothetical post-bitcointalk decentralized forum would have to find a way to preserve at least some parts of Bitcointalk, particularly the era before 2014, for the reasons mentioned by @JollyGood (historical significance).

10  Local / Trading und Spekulation / Re: Der Aktuelle Kursverlauf on: May 19, 2024, 10:46:20 PM
Was wäre deine weitere Prognose für das kommende Jahr? Ein Bärenjahr vermute ich?
Ich würde vor Mitte 2025 ein markantes ATH erwarten, vermutlich deutlich über 100.000. Wenn alles so kommt, wie es früher immer bei solchen FOMO-Phasen war, dann sollte der Markt gegen Ende des Jahres wieder abkühlen. Das würde dann auch der Elliott-Wellen-Theorie entsprechen.

2025 könnte trotzdem insgesamt positiv werden, denn oft waren in der Vergangenheit die letzten Wochen eines Hypes besonders steil. Nehmen wir z.B. mal an, wir kratzen 2024 noch an den 100.000 aber schaffen es nicht, sie nachhaltig zu überwinden. Der Kurs könnte dann Ende des Jahres in der bärischen Welle 4 (siehe letzter Post) noch mal auf das aktuelle Niveau zurückfallen. Wir hätten also um den Jahreswechsel vielleicht wieder 65-70k (das alte ATH wäre mein Tipp für den Support, wenn überhaupt alles so bullisch kommt). Ich könnte mir dann die letzte Hype-Welle im Februar bis April vorstellen, mit einem Hoch um 130000-150000. Kommt dann der Crash, dann ist es eher unwahrscheinlich, dass der 65-70k-Bereich so schnell (also vor Ende des Jahres) erreicht wird.

Natürlich gibt es daneben noch die Supercycle/This time it's different-Theorie. Ich denke aber davon sind wir noch etwas entfernt. Die ETFs könnten immerhin den nächsten großen Crash etwas abmildern, aber ich denke trotzdem dass der Bärenmarkt insgesamt noch mal auf ein Tief unter 50% des Hochs kapitulieren wird. Den Supercycle erwarte ich eher bei einem wirklichen Fortschreiten der Adoption durch "die Massen", aber eben nicht nur als kurzfristiges Spekulationsprodukt, sondern zuerst als Alternative zu Produkten wie Aktien-ETFs, also als "besseres Sparkonto". Und natürlich bei der Adoption als "Währung", aber da brauchen wir die Skalierbarkeit dazu.
11  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Runes are now worthless and have killed Ordinals too on: May 19, 2024, 10:25:05 PM
Well, I think we can almost be sure at this moment that Runes have killed Ordinals:


Source

And Runes are also declining fastly.


Source

Thus I've changed the title of the thread to adapt it to the current market situation Wink

I think Casey Rodarmor did the Bitcoin community a big favour when he created Runes. Grin My theory is that Runes simply caused more noise in the meme/token market, it was one competitor more in a field where already many platforms and token models, for example Solana meme tokens, had entered the space and competed heavily with BRC-20. This was fatal because the demand for the NFT/"uniquely named token"/memes model had already decreased. So they could create a short hype for the halving week, but later there was no way to sustain that.

Some BRC-20 tokens have still some value, like ORDI and SATS, but the big majority is being dumped into oblivion. I think they won't recover this time. Runes are doing even worse it seems (all those tracked by Coingecko have lost in the last 7 days, even in a time when Bitcoin was slightly bullish). They may get still one or another hype wave, but they are mucho less harmful to the Bitcoin mempool and I guess also the waves will be much less pronounced than 2023's Ordinals/BRC-20 waves.
12  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Crackdown on mixers and privacy tools is ineffective: it may even help criminals on: May 19, 2024, 07:55:22 PM
I would guess that it is only when the money turns to fiat that it matters. In reality, of course you can spend bitcoin to get something, but the government or the law enforcement will rarely care about it as long as it is within bitcoin world, they will not care about it in the end.
In my opinion this doesn't have to do much with that it's "within Bitcoin world". Generally the world of retail commerce is so big that it would be impossible to control everything to prevent criminals can spend even a single cent. Normally they concentrate on bigger sums (USD 1000 upwards).

If you can spend the money directly on goods and services, there is thus no need to "launder" it. Criminals usually can buy small goods directly with the stolen (or otherwise illicitly funded) money, because retail merchants are no "obliged subjects", they don't have to do AML checks. So if spending money on retail goods was all they wanted to do, there would also be no need to use cryptocurrencies for anything. They only would have to be fast to prevent that banks freeze their money once the investigation is advancing, or retire cash as soon as possible.

The exception are luxury goods and gold and other materials which are used as a store of value, like platinum. But that's the reason why normally the merchants of these products are "obliged subjects" and have to do AML checks. That also applies to those merchants who accept Bitcoin. So staying inside the "Bitcoin world" would also not bring much of an advantage.
13  Local / Deutsch (German) / Re: El Salvador on: May 19, 2024, 07:32:32 PM
Ähm, dass mit Müll Strom generiert wird ist aber jetzt nix neues Wink Und Speiseöl ... könnte man auch anders als "Biotreibstoff" beschreiben ... zumindest bei alten Ölresten ist das auch umwelt- und klimafreundlich.

Und naja, damit ausgerechnet Bitcoin zu minen, ist zwar besser als dafür Kohle oder Erdöl zu verwenden. Aber eigentlich ist Müll als Rohstoff ziemlich wertvoll, denn damit können ähnlich wie mit Biomasse Schwankungen von Wind- und Solarenergie ausgeglichen werden.

Besser sollte El Salvador doch bei der Geothermie ("Vulkan-Mining") bleiben. Und Wind und Sonne haben sie sicher auch (lange Küstenlinie z.B.).

Musste ich als einer der wenigen Ökos um Forum doch mal loswerden Smiley Trotzdem finde ich prinzipiell das Bitcoin City Projekt gut, denn in El Salvador gibt es auch Mangel an Wohnraum (und sicher auch an Gewerbeflächen), der dadurch verringert werden kann.
14  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: (BTC Reputation Upgrades) Can This Be Done With Bitcoin Without Using Alcoins? on: May 18, 2024, 11:40:01 PM
Most of what you propose can be done with Bitcoin, it doesn't need a "smart contract altcoin" with a turing complete language.

* The smart contracts used would specify funding targets, and other vital details.
* The first 100 (or 500 - for example) donations all earn the right to be (optionally) participating in a trustee group (DAO = cannot be done with BTC / possibly vote in the forum?)
There are several methods how you could implement that.

One is to develop a token which tracks the donations. This can be done without problems using existing token platforms which can be "extended" to allow more complex rules (I have myself made an experimental implementation for something very similar to an "investors community" once). The users (in this case: the donors) however would have to run not only the token software (Counterparty, Runes, etc.) but also a plugin or extension for these rules to work.

You could also use the RGB platform I think, which is the most "modern" token and smart contract platform for Bitcoin. There, you would set up the smart contract off-chain, but RGB could track the UTXOs of the donations.

But in general the big problem is that in the end, someone has to buy the ads, probably with fiat because I don't think Super Bowl will accept a Bitcoin-based platform like Anonymous Ads Wink So in general this person could simply set up a Bitcoin address for people to donate these funds. The "first 100 donors become trustees" rule does, in my opinion, not really add trust. First, you risk that scammers rush to get these 100 donor slots. If the scammers become the majority, then they could steal the funds. And second, the problem would not be solved, the person buying the ads is still a single point of failure.

You could design a complex system with periodic evaluations of the trustees, which would then have to regularly do "marketing actions" for Bitcoin with the donors' funds. This probably can be done with RGB too. But don't underestimate the complexity of such a system.
15  Local / Trading y especulación / Re: 2024|Se Avecina...la nueva bala de plata para poner en la recamara? by darxaiomi on: May 18, 2024, 11:11:50 PM
En los últimos días leí un poco las noticias y se habló de distintos temas que podrían haber causado el "cambio de rumbo" en esta última semana:

1) Parece que en general el mercado es ahora más optimista con respecto a la evolución de la tasa de interés estadounidense. El encuentro de la Fed el primero de mayo, si bien no estuvo marcado por un mensaje "de paloma" (es decir, que Powell no alimentó esperanzas de que las tasas podrían bajar pronto), tampoco fue tan "de halcón" como otros esperaban. Esto hizo también que el Bitcoin recuperó pronto lo que perdió el 1 de mayo, que puede haber sido por miedo a este encuentro ...
2) En las últimas semanas un fondo de pensiones estadounidense (¿o canadiense?) invirtió en ETFs de Bitcoin.
3) Las tensiones en Medio Oriente no escalaron más allá de lo del mes pasado. Todavía sigue siendo sin embargo una posible causa para un "black swan".
4) Como consecuencia directa de 1) el mercado de acciones en EEUU y en muchos otros países está bullish. En Europa también está mejorando la situación económica. En general se cree que es un buen momento para "activos de riesgo". Aunque obviamente siempre está el riesgo que se forme una burbuja.
5) Está por salir una ley de regulación de mercados en EEUU que es vista como amigable a la inversión en cripto.
6) También hay "inflows" significantes nuevamente en los ETFs estadounidenses.

También me parece importante que la evolución del precio del Bitcoin se estabilizó después de las turbulencias del 1 de mayo, y en estas situaciones en general se acumula confianza, cosa que también occurrió en enero después que brevemente vimos los 38-39k.
16  Other / Meta / Re: The effect the mixer ban has had on the forum. on: May 18, 2024, 08:49:22 PM
If I imagine a decentralized forum client, it doesn't have to be restricted to only one forum: many different forums could be accessed from the same client, and every user could create their own forum.
Here we have to distinguish between the platform and the client.

If somebody wants to found a Bitcointalk-style decentralized forum, create a (e.g. Steemit-like) blockchain, and set some rules for it, that could be achieved with a dedicated "platform". Another idea is to use an existing "platform" like the various decentralized Reddit clones and create a Bitcointalk-style variant of it. Or, even alternatively, you could design a client software (either local or web-based) which is able to access several "platforms" (e.g. different Mastodon, Nostr, Reddit-clone etc. instances), filters them for Bitcoin-themed "subforums", and creates something like a local Bitcoin-themed forum coming from different platforms. Smiley

Every possible variant of these concepts is possible. There is however one main problem one has to deal with: spam. For example, let's say you create a decentralized forum where everybody could create a subforum. How do you prevent that subforums are massively created?

Basically this is the same problem than the problem with moderation. There are two approaches to this: one is that you could implement a governance function, e.g. with a token. This was basically like Steemit did it: if a post received too many downvotes it wasn't displayed to users by default, and this could also happen to subforums. You could also the users require to vote for subforum creation, but due to sybil attacks you would probably need a PoS-style system, which has also disadvantages.

But there is another approach: let the clients (e.g. the web interface operators, or the local software) decide. These softwares could include an own content classification and also moderation system. This could also be a factor for them to compete: who has the most interesting and attractive interface?

Are you guys seriously getting your heads around a decentralised forum? Forums are things of the past and those that survive are because they were launched and were successful in the past. I think the only thing that hasn't completely killed them is that a lot of people forum during quiet times at work.
I think you're defining "forum" too narrowly ("websites that look like the forums of the 90s and 00s, like Bitcointalk Wink "). Twitter, Instagram, even TikTok are also "forums", only with a slightly different interface. These are platforms allowing people to discuss, react to other posts, and categorize posts thematically (if that's done via folksonomies - e.g. hashtags - or ontologies - subforums defined in some kind of a "top-down" manner - isn't that important.) There are even some successful forums which are very close to the 90s instances, particularly Reddit and their clones.

Of course instead we could talk about a decentralized Bitcoin-focused social media platform. There are many functions in modern social networks I would like to see in Bitcointalk, for example to follow other users and be alerted in the watchlist whenever they post. This is absolutely no problem in a forum software, modern softwares like Discourse allow it. And this would also be no problem in a decentralized forum. You would have only to implement filter rules, like in the "listunspent" Bitcoin RPC command you can filter by address.
17  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Crackdown on mixers and privacy tools is ineffective: it may even help criminals on: May 18, 2024, 08:00:57 PM
[...] MSB [...]
This seems to be the rule in several jurisdictions, particularly the US, but crypto assets service providers are not regulated this way in all jurisdictions. This depends of the status of cryptocurrencies. If they are classified as "goods", like it occurs in several countries, then exchanges until specific legislation is approved are basically bartering services (at least in the case of crypto-to-crypto).

no regulated service can just seize funds without a court order. most they can do without a court order is switch off the internal service for that customer, ask that customer to withdraw funds and then be banned from returning
What I was proposing in the OP was not "seizing" the funds but to "delay" them until there is a decision made if the funds come from a theft/illicit action or not. In the case the funds are finally seized, of course there has to be a court order. But the possible "delay" can be clarified by the mixer in his ToS. There are several crypto services already operating this way, including mixers, although with much less clear rules, thus I can't really mention a service which *today* is already operating as in this proposal.

Users have coins on address A, which is marked as tainted by the authorities. He sends coins from address A to the newly created address B, and at that moment unknown where and how it was created. After a 1-hour delay, some other coins were sent to the never-used address C, which the user provided.

So, the question is, If the service is well coded and automated, how the hell can anyone recognize in an hour who generated address B, request the blocking of funds, and at the same time the hosted service respond as soon as possible?
At least if we take the proposal I made in the OP, then there would not be such a time pressure.
First, there has to be a direct connection with a heist, thus a simple "tainting" because the funds were some months ago used for an illicit purpose would not be enough. That's what I discussed with ranochigo: this would seriously put Bitcoin's fungibility into question, so in the case this is implemented the "loss of fungibility" should only occur for a short time.

The OP proposal instead covers the typical case of somebody who has paid a ransom or got coins stolen from their wallet. This person would be able to immediately communicate this to the mixer through a specified communication channel, proving that the funds come from his wallet (this process could be totally automated, e.g. as a function in wallet software, so there's no technical barrier). It would enable the mixer to delay the funds, even if they pass through 3 intermediate steps like in your example. But the mixer can specify that if e.g. in 24 or 48 hours there is no authority response, the coins will be delivered to the person who requested the mixing. So the victim would have to denounce the stolen coins to the authorities. If this wasn't the case then you could simply pay for any good/service with BTC and then try to recover your funds this way ...
18  Local / Trading und Spekulation / Re: Der Aktuelle Kursverlauf on: May 18, 2024, 07:32:47 PM
Mich überrascht die Kursbewegung nicht. Der Bitcoin-Preis war ja rund zwei Monate lang in einer leicht bärischen Phase. Irgendwann gibt es dann eben auch eine stärkere Gegenbewegung.

Der "Grund" könnte einfach sein, dass einige der News, die den Preis ja erst mal in der 60k-Region gehalten haben, sich als weniger schlimm herausgestellt haben als von einigen vermutet. Insbesondere würde ich da die Iran-Israel-Krise (im Wall Observer wurde schon vom Dritten Weltkrieg gepostet) und die Leitzinssituation in den USA nennen, wo einige eben eine generell "hawkishere" Einstellung der Fed und daher eine pessimistische Phase für Risikoassets erwartet haben. Aber die Aktienkurse stiegen in den letzten Wochen ja, und die könnten dem Bitcoinpreis in der Hinsicht helfen, dass Bitcoin-Anleger die Börsenrally als Indiz für positive Aussichten für Risikoassets interpretieren.

In so einer Situation sind dann eben positive News wie die ETF-Investments einzelner Fonds, über die man in einer generell pessimistischen Phase kaum sprechen würde, Kurstreiber.

Ob wir jetzt bald ein ATH sehen? Möglich wäre es. Noch passt die Sitation halbwegs in meine Elliott-Wellen-Einordnung ("Korrektur in einer bullischen Welle 3"), die Situation wäre also ähnlich wie die Korrektur im Januar, nur dass sie sich länger hingezogen hat. In dem Fall, dass es sich weiterhin diesem Szenario entspricht, würde ich eine Steigerung auf rund 80-90 und vielleicht 100k bis Juli erwarten - dort dürften ja erst mal Widerstände auftreten. Dann aber eine stärkere Korrekturwelle von rund 30%. Hier könnte dann entweder das alte ATH oder die jüngeren Tiefs in den hohen 50ern als Support wirken. Und dann käme im späten 2024 die Welle 5.

Das würde auch zu den bisherigen "durchschnittlichen Monatserträgen" passen, die ich im einem englischen Thread zum Sell in May-Phänomen angesprochen habe - es wäre etwa ein klassischer "Downtember" wahrscheinlich. Wink Aber wie immer kann sich natürlich alles ganz anders entwickeln (blöde Floskel, aber wichtig für Newbies, die sowas lesen).

19  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Sidechain Observer - Projects & current state of development on: May 18, 2024, 06:15:53 AM
Thank you, very helpful website. Some of the projects described as "sidechains" would not meet my own definition (for example, they list Sequentia, which has no peg at all and for me is simply a "Bitcoin-anchored" altchain like Komodo) but others do and generally the site seems a good starting point too. So I've included it in the OP.

There is also L2.watch which lists a quite large list of projects and ideas (included it now in the OP) and the state of their development progress. They include "wrapped token" and other centralized mechanisms too, but there are also some interesting projects I didn't know about.

For example there is BEVM, which claims to work with Taproot contracts and according to L2 Watch is "operational". They claim also to be more decentralized than Stacks. I have however still not understood how their 2-way peg works; in their whitepaper they evade the term it seems and instead talk about "interactions". If someone knows BEVM better and can say if it could help with Bitcoin decentralization or it's just another vapourware/centralized project, more info about that project is welcome!
20  Economy / Speculation / Re: Is "Sell in May" really a good idea (in the case of Bitcoin)? on: May 17, 2024, 07:05:51 PM
I wonder if this pump is caused by the fact that we have had positive inflows into spot ETFs for four days in a row (and that hasn't happened in a long time), or if the market reacted to the news about the public announcement of all those US banks/companies that invested billions of $ in BTC through ETFs. Maybe it's a combination of both, but now the question is how long it will last.
The most convincing reason I heard is that it was caused largely of a decreasing inflation (and thus: interest rate) expectation in the US since the last Fed meeting. Basically I think it could have been contributed that stock markets are rallying worldwide, which is usually also a good sign for Bitcoin because it shows that people are willing to invest in riskiear assets.

I think also that the price didn't threaten again to fall under 60k significantly has also contributed. So there is more confidence in the current price level, and fear of another dump under the recent 56k lows are waning away.

I'm however not sure if this all is enough to get a new ATH soon. It could also consolidate again below the old ATH of 69k, but a bit higher (around 65-68k) for some time, but that would actually also be bullish in my opinion. A "quadruple top" in the 71-73k area due to a short and unsustainable spike would be more bearish.

I don't know if it can be seen/verified, but are there sales walls that can show how much BTC is for sale in the $80k to $100k range at the moment?
I haven't found such a wide orderbook aggregator. Most go up to 75k approximately, like on Coinglass which goes up to around 78k for spot (it goes up to 100k for futures, but there are almost no orders in the 80-100k range). I think for more you'd need an API account directly on the exchanges. But as in the 75-78k area there are already relatively few coins for sale I think that currently that won't be that different for over 80k. I think people will post their orders in this region once we go a bit higher, e.g. over 70k again.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 ... 423 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!