If I set my investment to September 2021, a 1000 USD, then Bitcoin is nice at all! Basically through volitility I would have just ~500 USD now, Can I get a link to the strange mathematical school you're adhering?  In September 2021, Bitcoin was at $5-10. You would have got 100-200 BTC for your $1000. You could sell them today for $2.5 / $5 million, which in real terms (taking into account inflation rate) would be $1.5 to $3 million. Or, as you are mentioning volatility, are you referring to a trader who always "buys high" and "sells low" and thus today has only $500 left? In this case, it's not Bitcoin's fault I continue to consider that it's an interesting idea to talk about Bitcoin's real interest rate. Which is lower than its nominal interest rate, of course. But it continues to be a good investment. Also you talk about "market position". A market position is bound to a specific time, i.e. you have to compare it with other assets at current prices, or you can compare their real interest rates, but fiat inflation is equal for all of them (at least, if you take into account a single fiat currency for comparison, like the US dollar). |
|
|
|
Looking at things from this point means that you can say we have three-tier fee structure, if you include Lightning Network. It makes more sense to limit this concept to on-chain transactions, for me. (Otherwise we could include several more tiers, like sidechain, pegged chain, trusted offchain ...) However, fees for witness are not another tier: they are combined into a single value, by using transaction weight. So, in practice you can see a single parameter: satoshis per virtual kilobyte. You can still insert more "real" kB of Segwit transactions in the block than using legacy. So while we have a unique "virtual" measure to create a "single virtual tier", if using "real" bytes it's a two-tier structure. The reason is obviously the different data structure, where the witness data is located outside of the 1MB "window". If we were to introduce a third tier, a similar method would have to be found to reduce the weight of the new transaction type even further, which would be challenging if we are limited to a soft-fork scenario. It would be perhaps easier to introduce an intermediate tier between Segwit and legacy, for example limiting the current Segwit discount to simple script types. (Allowing a hard fork however, everything would be possible). IMO a quite interesting way to do this without hard fork would be the use of rollups and its inclusion into the major Bitcoin apps (Bitcoin Core, Electrum), albeit they need some protocol changes. With rollups, simple transactions could be bundled, and thus would consume far less space. Of course rollups are a "partly offchain" method but the relevant data are onchain. free vs non-free transactions in the past Can you elaborate or provide me a link? Were there transactions which were completely free? (I've found this but it's not well explained.) The priority mechanism seems to me also quite different from the "witness discount": miners could abide or not, and as less and less miners used it, it was finally completely disabled. While the witness discount is different, as due to the data structure differences, a miner simply can stuff more Segwit transaction "real kB" in his block, so he can charge less fees for them without losing money due to opportunity cost. Because every stick has two ends: if closing channels is cheaper for regular users, it is also cheaper for attackers.
This is true, but Lightning always benefits the honest party by its timelock rules. So in the end I think security would be higher if Lightning closures could get a "special treatment" as the lowest-fee/highest space allowed tier. Wormhole attacks afaik aren't primarily a security threat but a malicious technique to raise income from routing fees, but given the low general level of routing fees (which according to threads I read some time ago isn't expected to rise substantially even in a high-LN-usage scenario) I guess incentives for this kind of attack should be quite low. There would be of course side effects, for example people could find transaction methods which use the same scripts like a LN channel closure but aren't, to benefit from the lower fee. Thus it would be a challenge to prevent spam attacks, and thus the weight discount for this transaction type can't be too high. |
|
|
|
|
We have already a two-tier fee structure. Segwit introduced it: we pay more fees for legacy-style (e.g. P2PK, P2PKH) transactions than for Segwit-style (e.g. P2WPKH, P2TR) transactions.
We always have to take into account that miners will always want to include the transactions in their blocks which net them the most fees. The way Segwit's two-tier structure has been achieved is the clue how a more advanced fee structure could be implemented without the miners' consent - miners will follow the new structure purely by incentive.
The principle would be very simple: give different transaction types different weights. This means in reality: allow more block space being occupied by a group of transactions, according to their type.
For example, one could, without problem, allow a higher amount of block space for simple transaction types which only allows the traditional OP_HASH160 <HASH> OP_EQUAL structure, creating a third "fee tier" behind Legacy and Segwit. All transactions with more complex scripts stay with the current fee structure. That would incentive using Bitcoin only for simple BTC transfers, and disincentive e.g. Ordinals inscriptions. But it would also disincentive other kinds of contracts.
This is only an example, we could for example also benefit Lightning channel openings and closures with a lower weight/allowing more block space.
I don't know if I would agree with such a change. There are however some interesting variants of this concept to think about. Benefitting Lightning closures with a lower weight however could be an example which would add more security to LN, because in the case of a massive attack by a malicious node, this would allow channels to be closed earlier and thus make the attack more difficult. So I think this could be an interesting long term idea. But it's not something I would want to see implemented in the short term.
|
|
|
|
1. Bitcoin is FIAT-bounded, and through exchange rates, has a worse inflation rate as FIAT.
I may not understand properly what you mean here, but isn't it the other way around? Even if your 30-40% "inflation adjustment" is true (I believe it is closer to 25% since 2013, because there were long stretches of very low inflation rate, only in the last 2 years it accelerated), you get an inflation (=deflation) rate of -96% for the last 10 years (taking for 2013: a price of $500, and for 2023, a price of $15000), which (estimated without calculating it) is about -15% per year. If you have a good valued $100000, then in 2013 its price in BTC was BTC200, in 2023 its BTC6,70. At this moment, Bitcoin is deflationary. This may change, but we're still not there. What is about the "chain-inflation"? First Bitcoin has 21 million, first fork has 21 million, and so on - and all this Bitcoin eating from the same bowl...
Yeah, but the main chain Bitcoin is still $15000 (in 2013 prices) or $25000 (in 2023 prices) worth, because you must add the market cap/price of the fork chains, not subtract it. The fork coins aren't fungible with the mainchain BTC. Or would you pay $10000 or more for a BSV? If I'm completely misunderstanding, please elaborate  (sorta interesting topic, by the way). |
|
|
|
I'm sorry, but the opinion of a person LIVING in China, and receiving information from users of the Chinese auto industry, is more significant for me than your ASSUMPTION, built on the fact that "I heard it somewhere." Well it's not just an assumption. And I didn't "hear" it but "read" it "somewhere" - some European media were full about these stories in the last months. The media reports are probably mostly based on a report by Allianz ("The Chinese challenge for the European automotive industry") from May 2023 which you can find here. And there you can read things like: The growing competitiveness of China’s automotive industry is best reflected in its bilateral automotive trade with the rest of the world. [...]
While Chinese manufacturers used to focus on the needs of other emerging economies in Asia, the Middle East and Latin America, it is European markets that contributed the most to booming exports, jumping from an estimated 8% share of exports in 2017 to a 28% share in 2022.
Source: Allianz report, p. 10 It seems also according to the report that the market share of completely Chinese carmakers is growing in their country as well, to the detriment of the "traditional" joint ventures with European companies. The problem for European carmakers is that their big competitive advantage in the past and until the present is their experience with internal combustion engines, but EV production is radically different, and Europe wasn't very strong in this segment (even the US was better until recently). If EVs continue to advance, and this seems to be the case, then logic dictates that Chinese carmakers will continue to strengthen their position in the world market. |
|
|
|
But can Litecoin outperform Bitcoin or is Litecoin dead in your opinion?
In my opinion, neither of both. I guess the Litecoin price will very likely move very much in parallel to Bitcoin's, only some steps lower. Litecoin is imo a good long time investment, and I would not be surprised if it returns into the top 10 by marketcap. You can already see that it's not dead and constantly evolving because they only relatively recently integrated MWEB as a technology which is still far from being implemented in BTC. They also pretty fastly adapted Ordinals (and on LTC it makes much more sense than on BTC). And in terms of the transaction "density" Litecoin has got quite close to Bitcoin (although Doge is now outperforming both, most likely due to Doginals):  |
|
|
|
"A lot of countries"? I don't think it's a common phenomenon in the Modern Age, especially when the economies of the different parts of the world have gotten so inter-connected, that the loss of momentum in one region of the world could easily be taken advantage of by another region. Basically all of Europe, North America, some parts of South America as well, and Japan/South Korea. While there were economy slowdowns in some of these regions during that transition, nowhere they were catastrophic (Southern Europe could be the region most affected by this phenomenon, but even there I wouldn't describe the situation as "catastrophic". And in South America the economic problems have other reasons, basically the lack of long-term planning and drastic changes in macroeconomic policy which obstaculized the establishment of a strong industry.). India, with its growing population, could be in a position to take China's title as the world's manufacturer and source of cheap labor.
This is already happening, we have of course to add countries like Bangladesh. But it's a gradual shift. High aggregated value industries are concentrating in China now, and cheaper "level" industries already moved to India, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Ethiopia etc.. Industries are adapting in all countries constantly to these "reconfigurations". I don't see a point in time where this could lead to an extreme slowdown in China which would lead to a full fledged deflation. And India is also close to moving to a high-median age population as fertility rates are already almost on European levels, so they also have to prepare for a "post cheap labor" scenario. You're comparing different timelines.
I don't dispute what you wrote, but I think it will simply lead to a "normal" economic slowdown, as I posted before. Western Europe in the 80s/South Korea in the 90s weren't poor, and Europe had a particularly early, but slow transition to high median ages. Basically the "cheap labor" industries in China are already declining, and the "others" (high aggregated value) are already developing since several years, with a particular boost in the last 5. I don't want to mention only cars as an example, others are Bytedance/TikTok and Alibaba competing with US tech companies. So in general I don't think why China shouldn't be "ready for that" while other nations in the 80s/90s were. I see a quite similar transition. With your second paragraph (the well known marginal utility debate) I fully agree instead and this is also why I think there will be definitely a slowdown in China's economic growtn. My only difference with you is the magnitude - I think it won't be enough for a deflation; a new low inflation phase (like in Japan/Europe) is a more plausible scenario for me. |
|
|
|
Findest du? Also wenn es gegen große Player geht, dann sehe ich es schon als eine Kampfansage gegen Krypto allgemein. Zuvor waren es immer einzelne Projekte/Coins, aber wenn die SEC nun gar nicht mehr an die Projektowner rangeht, sondern an die "Distributoren", dann kann sie mit einem Streich viele Projekte treffen. Und gerade Coinbase hat in den USA schon ein standing. Es geht ja anscheinend um bestimmte Dienstleistungen, die Binance anbietet (insbesondere um den ganzen BNB/BUSD Komplex), und die nicht SEC-konform sein sollen, sowie um Umgehung von Registrierungspflichten und US-KYC-Richtlinien (mangende Trennung zwischen Binance.US und Binance.com). Also gar nicht primär ums Trading an sich. Die Anschuldigungen sollten jedenfalls nicht einfach so auf andere Exchanges übertragbar sein. Um die "Kryptowelt" geht es imo nur, wenn man in diese alle Scams, "unregistrierte Wertpapiere" (Securities-Diskussion), "Pseudo-DeFi", Pseudo-"Staking" und andere Dinge, die in den USA und vielen Regionen der Welt einfach nicht erlaubt sind, mit einschließt. Bitcoin selbst sollte sich hingegen zurücklehnen können. Und einen faden Beigeschmack hat die Sache auch, da Coinbase ein IPO durchführen durfte. Und da hatte die SEC nichts dagegen. (Hatte ich im Coinbase Thread auch schon mal erwähnt).
Bei Coinbase geht es wohl hauptsächlich um das "Staking as a service", das als "unregistrierte Security" klassifiziert wird. Wo du allerdings recht hast ist dass diese Dienste schon vor dem IPO (seit 2019) angeboten wurden. Warum das IPO trotzdem erlaubt wurde, also ob dieser Regelverstoß damals schon klar war und somit "ignoriert" wurde - so detailliert habe ich mich damit nicht befasst. |
|
|
|
If what gmaxwell writes here is true, then BRC-20 and Ordinals are completely doomed in the long-term. What he wrote is basically that Bitcoin eventually will move to a mechanism where not everything stored in previous blocks will be kept in storage by the nodes. The initial blockchain validation by new nodes would then be achieved by other means (perhaps by something similar like the mini-blockchain scheme). It would then become difficult to find a node providing all Ordinals/BRC-20 inscriptions, which means that data storage on the Bitcoin blockchain would not be permanent anymore. The post is also interesting because it seems that Ordinals had some financing by persons with very shady intentions with respect to Bitcoin. If some people describe Ordinals as an "attack" there is perhaps a bit of truth in it. This only reinforces my stance about that: Keep away from BRC-20. And probably from all inscription-related features. |
|
|
|
Ein bisschen ist es am Ende doch abgesackt (auf die untere Hälfte des 26K-Bereiches). Ich denke das hat sicher auch weiterhin mit den Ängsten rund um Binance zu tun. Im Spiegel (leider hinter Paywall) gab es eine Überschrift, Gary Gensler erkläre der Kryptowelt den Krieg. "Die Existenz einer ganzen Branche steht in Frage" (so der Untertitel  ). Wobei man sich immer klarmachen muss, dass es nicht um die "Kryptowelt" geht, sondern um einige - möglicherweise viele - zentralisierte Anbieter, die nur periphere Dienstleistungen rund um Bitcoin anbieten. Natürlich ist der Tausch von Waren gegen BTC oder auch P2P-Börsen wie Bisq weniger komfortabel. Aber ist wirklich das High-Frequency/Bot-Trading, der USP der zentralisierten Börsen, auch der USP von Kryptowährungen? Eher nicht Aber natürlich würden richtige Probleme für Binance auch die Kurse nach unten drücken. Hauptsächlich aber aus Panik und Geldmacherei mit Shorten. Und sollte Binance wirklich komplett fallen (was ich mir aus heutiger Sicht nicht vorstellen kann), hätte die Kryptowelt auch ein Problem weniger. |
|
|
|
From my understanding (and please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) it was segwit that enabled this "exploit" but it was taproot that made it so cheap it was feasible to engage in. It's basically the other way around: Segwit made the transactions cheap, but Taproot enabled bigger standard transactions than before. There seems to be however still a misunderstanding, because this applies to big inscriptions and not to BRC-20 inscriptions which are very small. BRC-20 could have been implemented in a slightly different way without problems without Taproot (storing the JSON file in an OP_RETURN output). That's basically what the Doginals folks on Dogecoin did. Thus: So from my perspective, the only way I could get behind a boycott of BRC-20 would be to also remove the Lightning Network,
... this wouldn't make sense, because then BRC-20 would simply use another token technology. There are even methods which do not even require OP_RETURN. |
|
|
|
The Chinese car industry is a good example, but... I am absolutely sure that this will all end with the introduction of additional duties on Chinese cars, which will cross out the benefits of buying them. The EU will protect its market, as the EU car industry is one of the most important elements of the economy.
The second side of the Chinese car industry is Western technology, without which there are no production lines or high-quality implementation of car functionality.
As far as I know the quality of Chinese cars has improved greatly in the last years, so what your friend told you "a couple of years ago" may already be outdated. It's only the last 2-3 years I've seen good reviews even in European media. And of course this is mainly in the electric/H2 car field. About increasing tariffs - I don't really believe in that; EU companies are dependant on selling their products to China, so they won't risk a "customs war" like the US is currently willing to risk. I also don't believe in the theory of the demographic bomb mentioned by others here. There are lots of countries who managed a transition from a society with a low median age to a high median age without major problems. It can be an element lowering economic growth for some years but I believe it won't be dramatic. China (and Asian countries in general, also Japan, Korea etc.) are also known for being quite aggressive using productivity-boosting technologies, for example high tech construction methods with few human workers, or also technology used in care of the elderly, and AI will even improve this situation. |
|
|
|
- do you believe we're heading to deflation? I think there is a certain probability we'll reach a zero-inflation to slight deflation scenario in 1-2 years. But not exclusively due to China's problems and the worldwide weak economic moment. Energy prices may go downhill permanently and steadily from now on (with some hiccups of course), and that will lead to downward pressures in all markets closely related to energy. - how do you think the price of BTC will be influenced if we do so?
The influence of inflation to Bitcoin prices is a bit "paradoxical". As others wrote, Bitcoin is marketed as a way to protect patrimony from inflation. So you would estimate that it could react negatively in a deflation. But in the past Bitcoin did generally really well in low-inflation/deflation periods. The reason may be quite obvious: in deflation periods the central banks reccurr to QE and other "money printing" solutions and to low/negative interest rates to boost inflation to ~2%. This leads not only to "free" money flowing into Bitcoin, but also to Bitcoin being seen as an alternative to low-interest traditional financial products. While in inflationary periods it's the opposite: markets are drying up and BTC is negatively affected. However that is also not the whole story. In countries with really high inflation (let's say more than 20-30%/y, Argentina is the prime example), Bitcoin is also doing exceptionally well. If you invest in Bitcoin in these countries, you will win even in bear markets (if you don't invest exactly at a bubble top, perhaps) compared to holding fiat. For example, in Argentina inflation is 100-120%/y (and currency devaluates to a similar pace), but bank deposit interest rates are around 80-90%/y. This means: If BTC/USD loses less than 20%-30% per year you win even against a bank deposit. This means the risk investing in BTC drops seriously in these countries - in the absolute worst case (~65% drop like in 2022) you're still not losing much against simply holding cash. So I guess the mechanism is: - Very high inflation: Bitcoin price tends to go up, because even a downtrend price still is better than national currency. - Moderately high inflation: Bitcoin tends to go down, because of the restrictive central bank methods (high interest rates, no more QE) - Low inflation or deflation: Bitcoin tends to go up, because of the tendency to a high fiat money supply growth, and the attractivity against low-interest traditional financial products. Who will replace more than 50% of exports? India? Russia ? Iran? Do they have dollars? What about technology? NO one or the other!
Europe, and most of the rest of the world (by the way: 50% is not true, its ~16 % (2022)). Chinese state and corporations are investing heavily there to penetrate the European market even more. The most notorious example is cars - Chinese carbuilders are building up a strong position in Europe. They may soon get a similar position to Japan and South Korea, with expectations to grow even more. However, I think that China's growth rates may really enter a (temporary) recession now due to short-term economic policy errors, and in the long term reduce sustainably, i.e. staying largely below ~5% and approaching 1-2% in most years, because it's becoming a stable industrialized economy and there are less opportunities to cheaply catch up. But I also don't see really a catastrophic outcome, even if some seem to desire this. Their internal market is probably strong enough to survive all external crises. |
|
|
|
My opinion differs with respect to Ordinals, Inscriptions and BRC-20: - Ordinals project itself ("collecting [rare and strange] satoshis"): It's ok. It's not a major innovation, but could be interesting for some collectionists. Not for me, however (but if I find one of these super-rare things I'll sell it ). - Inscriptions: On Bitcoin-style altcoins they can be a cool feature. I support them above all on data-centered chains like NMC or Doge (although currently it seems both don't support Taproot). But Bitcoin isn't a good place for them. Bitcoin's network effect depends on its main token. That doesn't mean BTC has do be used only for regular transactions (financial contracts are also interesting) but it's of no value to store other kind of data there. I'm against all inscriptions larger than ~1-2 kB and thus would support a developer action to make big Taproot transactions non-standard (but not Ordisrespector and other censorship/"filter" methods). - BRC-20: the worst and most anachronistic technology I've ever seen on Bitcoin (JSON to save data on-chain? Really? Why not use Protobuf or similar much more efficient methods?). It was started as an experiment but people took it seriously, most likely because many don't know that there are already dozens of competing standards since ~2013-14 which are mostly much more efficient with space (EPOBC, Open Assets, Counterparty, Omni, RGB, Taproot Assets [Taro] - even recommended by the BRC-20 creator!). I expect a sudden and cruel death and a >90% loss for everybody who invested in these tokens straight out of the technology stone age. |
|
|
|
I made actually a mistake in the conclusions of my last post regarding the total mining emissions, as I made the incorrect assumption that hashrate growth is equal to energy consumption growth. It seems that Bitcoin's total carbon emissions thus very likely are already declining if we take into account the decline in carbon emissions intensity shown in the study linked by OP. CBECI (not the best source, but they seem to provide the best charts) sees a electricity consumption increase from January 2021 to May 2023 of only about 40% (from 120 100* to 140 TWh/Y), in a period when hashrate approximately doubled. If we take into account now that the emission intensity went down to 50%, then the total emissions seem to have reduced by almost 30% since January 2021. Good material for #EndTheFUD/bitcoincleanup.com, or not?
What's even more interesting to me is actually the emission intensity decline after the "China ban", i.e. since mid-2021. In January 2022 intensity reached 400 g/kWh, with a consumption of 120 TWh/Y. In May 2023 we have 140, with an emission intensity of 300. This means the current decline in emissions is about 13,5% per year. There's of course the price parameter still to take into account. January 2022 isn't the ideal comparison point as the price was higher than today (~40000$). Maybe one could create a formula taking into account emission evolution and price. In general, we've all reasons to be optimistic * Edit: sorry, here I copied the wrong number (from 2022). Corrected. |
|
|
|
Thanks for sharing. I looked at the article, and in general what they write seems reasonable. However, there's a tiny amount of doubt one could cite. Most of the increase in zero-emission share compared to the CCAF study, which greatly influences the "carbon intensity" figure, is due to off-grid mining operations. The figures are based on the hashrate share of some off-grid mining providers: The Zero-emission off-grid portion included Cleanspark, DPO, Terawulf, Blockfusion, Aspen Creek, Bitfarms, Gryphon, Soluna, Hive, Cowa, Sato, Genesis, Iris, Hut8, Northern Data, DMG Blockchain, Cipher.
(Source: BEEST) Are these figures trustworthy and how are they collected? Do they also take into account that perhaps some stats about ZE share in countries already take into account off-grid figures? I would have to look deeper into the sources - as I wrote it's only a tiny amount of doubt. But in general, I approve the methodology. The other point of criticism is that the figure "emission intensity" is of course not taking into account the hashrate itself. From January 2021 to today, this figure has been slightly more than doubled (from ~150 Eh/s to 300-350 Eh/s). This means that the total emissions of BTC are about the same than in early 2021, perhaps slightly more. However, Bitcoin's price is also lower (currently a little bit, but hashrate generally recovers slower than the price due to inertia - mining operations have to know if their hashrate/reward equation is sustainable or not to finance operations), and the price influences hashrate. So if we see late 2021 prices again, hashrate could grow slowly but quite a lot. The interesting take on all this is that to lower emissions we need to reach a point where extreme events like the China ban don't have such a large impact on emissions. For now the China ban explains most of the ZE share increase. However, in the graph the late 2022/early 2023 values look quite good. In general I'm optimistic - ZE share is growing at a steady pace all over the world, so Bitcoin's emissions will eventually reach the desired tipping point and lower. @Yamane_Keto: I absolutely don't agree with your first paragraph. The thread moving to Mining would however be an ok decision. |
|
|
|
I think, over time all mixers are going to be shut down by various government entities. Even if they are doing nothing illegitimate, for some reason everybody in law enforcement sees them as illegitimate.
There were times I thought this, too (especially after BitMixer and Blender were taking down). But I got some hope when I read the proposed regulation for crypto-asset transfers in the EU. They acknowledge clearly that there are legitimate uses of mixers here: (34d) The use of mixing and tumbling services should only be allowed in circumstances where it can be shown that the use of such services is necessary to overcome legitimate concerns, such as for privacy reasons.
Source: Draft legislation 2021/0241 (COD)It is implied that this means no general prohibition of mixing, however, that crypto asset service providers, when registering a transaction coming from a mixer and the transaction being suspicious, "should" collect additional data and/or a justification of the mixing "practice". Of course this is only a draft proposal in one of the major economic regions, but it could indicate a "pragmatic" stance regarding mixers becoming more commonplace. It is also possible that mixing services themselves could be regulated eventually, i.e. for example determining maximum non-KYC amounts and otherwise some form of KYC (which would of course be difficult to be implemented by the current mixers like Sinbad, Whirlwind etc.). Of course if it is suspected that a mixing operator has cooperated with criminals or acted with a high degree of negligence (i.e. not performing at least basic chain analysis for funds linked to major hacks/thefts/ransomware attacks), then further seizures are to be expected.
Edit: Unfortunately, the article I mentioned before was deleted from the final regulation draft. Instead a more ambiguos passage was introduced: that the European Banking Authority (EBA) should clarify the rules crypto-asset providers shall adopt when faced with transactions which went through mixers. So we have to wait what's the final outcome of this. |
|
|
|
Bis jetzt wurde ja nur der untere Rand des Seitwärtskanals mal wieder angetestet (knapp unter 26000). Dabei wurden höchstens auf einzelnen Börsen die Tiefs von vor 2 Wochen unterschritten. Ich seh den Markt also weiterhin in Abwartehaltung, aber doch etwas pessimistischer als vor 3-4 Wochen als man sich noch über 28-29K hielt. Wahrscheinlich, weil man sich nicht entscheiden kann zwischen dem klassischen, lehrbuchartigen "Sell in May"-Szenario*, bei dem der Sommer unterdurchschnittlich performt (dann wäre ein Antesten der 20K - zumindest in Euro - drin) und dem Szenario etwa von 2019 oder 2017, als die Sommermonate recht bis sehr gut dastanden. Vielleicht ist auch noch Angst dabei, was jetzt mit den Ordinals ist. Da ich bisher große Ähnlichkeiten beim Kursverlauf zu 2019 sehe, ist das Szenario "bullischer Pump in den nächsten Wochen" durchaus noch drin. Aber ob es das wahrscheinlichste ist? Man bekommt in solchen etwas schwächeren Phasen aber vielleicht noch vom Kurs das Hirn vernebelt  *hab gerade bei Bitcoincharts gesehen, dass "Sell in May" bei Bitcoin sehr selten vorkommt, am ehesten noch 2018 und 2022. |
|
|
|
I do not agree with the OP, for the reasons @garlonicon already mentioned. Addresses should never be regarded as personal data. There are only some unlikely cases where a problem could emerge (e.g. an European company which has to comply with GDPR storing personal information of a person on a blockchain - this company could get into serious trouble). However, I wanted to point out that there are already some blockchain models which enable a kind of "right to be forgotten". Perhaps the most prominent is the "mini-blockchain scheme" (Bruce, 2014) [1], where all old transactions which have been completely spent can be pruned. Compared to Bitcoin, however, it has however some additional attack vectors. There is also Ardor [2], which could be described as a "partial" mini-blockchain, as pruning is possible for sub-chains or child-chains, but not for the mainchain which should only contain financial, no personal data (Ardor has no scripting language which allows something like OP_RETURN or Ordinals). A third way could be the way Grin [3] operates. Grin stores data in a way only a few bytes per transaction could be used for arbitrary (like personal) data, and if you wanted to use these bytes to store data you'd have to publish a "scheme" somewhere else, and then the scheme would be the place where the personal data were stored. We have discussed this in the thread about Ordinals. [1] https://cryptonite.info/files/mbc-scheme-rev3.pdf[2] https://www.allcryptowhitepapers.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Jelurida-ardor-Whitepaper.pdf[3] https://forum.grin.mw/t/ordinals-on-grin/10336 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
