I'm following them since a long time ago (probably 2017) and their idea is extremely interesting. I generally agree with Paul Sztorc that the risks should be manageable.

It's cool that they are doing alpha tests with some "clone" blockchains. But I have currently not too much hope that the "ACK" opcode (i.e. the "hashrate escrow" mechanism) gets added to the Bitcoin code in the short to mid term.

Thus I think in the short term, "dynamic federations" like Stacks and Nomic are what's possible today - only that both rely on premined tokens and thus they're not decentralized solutions for me.

I also have some hope about rollups being possible soon (see here for a concept). They could drastically reduce the footprint of payment transactions. Perhaps they could be combined with the "data sidechain" concept, i.e. you would store an Ordinals NFT in the rollup-sidechain and for all related mainchain activity (e.g. buying and selling the NFT for BTC) you would once commit a hash and a pointer to the sidechain location to the mainchain. Haven't thought about that in depth though.

Meine Prognose ist: Ein ATH gibt es noch 2023.

Allerdings nur knapp über dem alten, also unter 100.000 USD.

Ich denke zunächst an einen Verlauf ähnlich wie 2019, aber ohne den Corona-Dip, wenn uns nicht die Weltgeschichte noch einen Streich spielt (Vogelgrippe-Übersprung auf den Menschen, Nuklearkrieg in der Ukraine, großer Blackout weil die linksgrünversifften Deutschen ihre AKWs abgeschaltet haben, oder alternativ "Störfall" in einem Nachbarland oder gar in den US and A, weil die rechtsgelbversifften ihre nicht aufgeben wollen usw. - halt Black Swans für jeden Geschmack.). Da sich aber die Rahmenbedingungen (Inflation, Zinsniveau usw.) ansonsten mit einer gewissen Wahrscheinlichkeit ins Positive wenden, könnte der Verlauf nach dem ersten Zwischenhoch diesmal besser aussehen.

Meine Glaskugel sagt im Detail folgendes:

- bin mir immer noch unschlüssig ob es noch eine Stufe im April hoch geht, eher stagniert es bei maximal 32-33.000 mit Bärenversuchen bis runter auf 28600. Kleine bis mittlere Wahrscheinlichkeit für 35-37K.
- im Mai - Juni ganz langsam ansteigend auf maximal 41-42K, analog zum Zwischenhoch 2019.
- im Juli gibt es noch mal einen kleinen Einbruch in die tiefen 30er, gefolgt von Stagnation knapp unter 40K im August.
- Der September beginnt noch mal als Downtember (Ende der ersten bärischen Elliott-Welle), dann aber werden die 50K spätestens im Oktober angegriffen. El Salvador hat Break-Even, das kann noch mal einen Schub geben.
- Sind die 50K durch, rechne ich mit einem schnellen Anstieg bis zum alten ATH, wahrscheinlich im November wird es dann durchbrochen. Im Dezember dann ein Zwischenhoch auf rund 80-90K..
- Die 100.000 kommen dann 2024.

Ohne Gewähr, ich lag früher bei solchen Spielchen oft falsch, aber war in Bullenmärkten meistens zu vorsichtig  ...

LTC al menos tiene entre un tercio y la mitad del número de transacciones por día que Bitcoin:



Es interesante que Doge tiene bastante menos, a pesar de su capitalización de mercado más alta. También se puede inducir del gráfico que ninguna de las alts de este grupo se pudo beneficiar hasta ahora del mercado alcista que parece haber iniciado. Bitcoin desde enero tiene significativamente más transacciones por día, y hubo otro empujón con Ordinals. En el caso de LTC y Doge se ve un pequeño pico de transacciones en marzo, que puede ser que tenga que ver con la implementación de Ordinals en LTC y de Doginals (un proyecto de NFT similar pero con otras tecnologías, ya que Doge carece de Segwit) en Doge.

Es curioso, yo hubiera esperado un crecimiento más sostenido de Doge y LTC este año también. Quizá son mayoritariamente las altcoins más centralizadas que se han beneficiado con este mercado alcista. Pero al menos ETH y XRP siguen estancadas en cuanto al número de transacciones.

Oh, I see now where you're coming from Sorry, I'll not discuss most of these issues, what you wrote has been debunked decades ago and it's really off topic here. If you stand on the point of view that "renewable energies are evil" then even the advantage of a higher miner energy consumption I mentioned in the last sentence doesn't hold anymore ... d'oh!

The only issue which is worth discussing in this thread is your hypothesis of "more energy = more jobs = better for the economy", and how it applies to Bitcoin.

This hypothesis can be debunked actually very easily: take the energy consumption of major industrialized countries over the past decades and their economy's growth:

- The US reached the maximum energy consumption per capita in 1979. It's only going downhill from there.
- The UK and Germany had a double peak in the late seventies and in the early 80s, then it's also going downhill.
- France and Italy had later peaks in the early 2000s, but then also significantly reduced their per capita consumption.

(Source: Our World in Data)

You can compare now these figures with GDP growth:

GDP per capita

As you see, 1979 wasn't the peak of the US's or any other country's GDP. Only in Italy there is a correlation of the economic peak with the energy usage peak, but when the country recovered later from a mid-to-late 2000s crisis, the lines diverge again.

The conclusion is: all countries are becoming more efficient in energy use, and it seems to affect the economy positively. Thus the equation is wrong. EOD.

You could have the best of both worlds (altcoins/Bitcoin) if you design such a coin as a Bitcoin sidechain, i.e. with the ability to transfer Bitcoin's value on it and with a 2-way-peg with BTC, but with an own mining token.

Sidechains are seeing some development lately and aren't limited anymore to static federation-based chains, see Stacks. The problem of Stacks is that its token is premined, so it's conceptually centralized (not technically).

If we had a "decentralized Stacks" with community consensus, or even better several chains in this manner, we could not only use it for things like Ordinals, but also for smaller payments, which could increase adoption due to smaller fees.

This would mean the benefit for miners would be "doubled": first, they of course get the static block reward of the sidechain's "native" coin, and second, the value proposition of the whole chain ecosystem would be stronger, so it's likely that the mining reward for Bitcoin's main chain, even if it becomes very small, provides enough incentive for safety.

Of course "less energy consumption" is better.

Your argument makes not really sense, because avoidable energy consumption is not correlated with "job creation" or "economy strength". Jobs can be created even with technology that leads to a lower energy consumption (i.e. creating more efficient automobiles and housing with less heating requirements). I'm convinced the strongest economies will be those with the most sustainable and efficient energy consumption habits. They have less dependencies on other countries (see the problematic relation between Russia and Europe), less needs for subsidies in the case of high energy price bubbles, less import costs, etc.

The only way there is a correlation is the other way around: you can of course create jobs which lead to a consumption of energy. But in Bitcoin mining this is not the case: mining farms are mostly automated.

There is one positive effect of Bitcoin mining which can be beneficial and has been cited: if they use mostly renewable sources, then that can help to upscale renewables equipment production, e.g. the solar cells and wind turbines industry. But I think this effect is minimal, there is so much energy demand for other uses, and CO₂ certificates price rise all the time, so the demand for renewables is growing in an accelerated pace even without Bitcoin's intervention.

Die 30.000 (USD) sind wieder da

Wie gesagt, eigentlich erwarte ich maximal so 2-3000 $ höher wieder eine Pause. Aber es kann natürlich auch sein, dass jetzt richtig FOMO aufkommt und wir gleich in die mittleren oder sogar hohen 30.000er steigen. Das Indiz dafür, dass langsam wieder eine schöne bullische Aktivität aufgebaut wird, ist für mich das Fehlen eines Dips runter auf 25000, mit dem ich eigentlich gerechnet hatte. 40.000 sehe ich aber noch ein paar Wochen/Monate weg. Und einen erneuten Dip auf 20.000 noch nicht 100% ausgeschlossen. Aber zu 80-90% schon

I have a slightly diverging opinion on this issue.

First, like all others who posted here, I believe PoW to be the best, and above all, the most "objective" method to mine blocks and protect from double spends. And I believe Bitcoin can prevail using only PoW, hopefully driving miners progressively into renewable energies.

But the algorithm could, in theory, probably be improved adding other elements. The big problem of PoS and other "alternative" methods like Proof-of-Capacity (PoC), the nothing-and-stake problem, means essentially that we can't calculate the security they deliver properly (even if shitcoins like Cardano claim so) due to different attacks with a cost which is difficult to measure (node/min[t]er bribing, min[t]er collusion, liveness attacks), above all if we take potential profits into account (i.e. by short selling a PoS currency).

That these methods do generate some security, however, is without doubts - PoS and PoC currencies seem widely doing well. Most of them have centralization problems, but not all (Peercoin, Signum, Blackcoin and Slimcoin are highly decentralized cryptocurrencies with at least some PoS or PoC component). The problem is, again, that we don't know how much it would cost to attack them if we take bribing, long-term and short-term N@S, and attacks on PBFT via miner cartels into account.

Where I'm heading to - I believe a slight PoS contribution to a Bitcoin-like PoW algorithm (what we know popularly as "PoW/PoS") could, in theory, deliver a better security/energy consumption equation. Ethereum had planned that for some months, but they ditched the idea to switch to a pure (PBFT-)PoS algorithm.

I however believe that it's too late to change Bitcoin's algorithm, and such a change would be highly controversial and most likely generate a fork. So, as I wrote above, this is a purely theoretic opinion, no drama necessary.

Some comments to the evolution happening in the LN world, according to BitcoinVisuals.

In general it looks positive again, after a stagnating 2022:

- Network capacity from Januar to April rose from 5 to almost 5.5 kBTC
- Node count is also up, from 17000 to 18000 (1ml shows "only" ~16400, but there is unfortunately no historical view)
- But the channels count seems to be downtrending, from almost 80000 down to 75000

Thus the channel per node count is going down constantly, from mid-2022 on.

I wonder if there an explanation for that trend. It seems quite stable, so it's probably not simply "one big node with lots of channels taken down". If you look at the Channels per Node stat (on the left in the low part of BitcoinVisuals), it seems definitely that this trend is driven by the large nodes. The 10% largest nodes had an average of 18 channels in mid-2022, now this value went down to 15, while all other groups stayed constant. It seems almost that the network is slowly again decentralizing after a period of centralization in 2021/22 ... which is of course also positive.

The Coinbase announcement could however reverse this trend a bit perhaps, as I expect them to build up a quite well-connected node with lots of channels. I'm quite happy with the announcement though - it's the second big exchange supporting LN after Bitfinex, so we may finally see "LN arbitrage" becoming a thing (something that was discussed earlier as a potential "killer app").

Estaba buscando estos días si hay por lo menos alguna novedad positiva del desarrollo de proyectos cripto en la RCA.

No se si conté acá que me había registrado para el newsletter del proyecto Sango, que es una suerte de altcoin o token (no se si tiene cadena propia o no) que se iba a respaldar con Bitcoin y se iba a usar para distintos fines, como una "e-residencia", pero algunos de ellos fueron prohibidos por la Corte Suprema de la República Centroafricana. No recibí más mails desde octubre de 2022. Sin embargo, Sango sigue en línea, aparentemente van por el "ciclo 5". En marzo parece que hubo problemas con los depósitos. Y el 31 de marzo, se anunció que el "listing" de Sango se iba a demorar algunas semanas más, "hasta que el marco legal esté completo". Se espera un precio de listing de 45 centavos por Sango Coin.

Es decir, que el proyecto sigue "apenas" vivo, pero todavía no he perdido las esperanzas. Se que a los maximalistas no les gusta Sango "porque es una shitcoin". Pero yo creo que una moneda respaldada por BTC puede ser un experimento interesante, y quizá puede atraer inversiones, aunque sean mínimas, para una infraestructura con BTC. Igual me interesa y por ende lo voy a seguir. Aparentemente hay un grupo de Telegram de Sango, si lo encuentro me registro.

Ja, schade. Der Annahmezwang mag halt auch etwas schwieriger durchsetzbar sein in einem Land, das selbst vom bescheidenen Wohlstand eines El Salvador noch weit entfernt ist, und zudem wesentlich ländlicher geprägt ist als Bukeles dichtbesiedeltes Fürstentum .

Ich glaube auch dass die weltweite Bitcoin-Community da vielleicht etwas aktiver hätte rangehen müssen, eventuell Initiativen starten, Startups gründen ... Ich vermute da waren die Vorurteile doch zu groß, wenn ich mir da den englischen Faden anschaue. Es waren zwar Vertreter von Bitcoin- und Altcoincommunities tatsächlich dort zu Besuch (siehe oben) aber wirklich großartige Iniatiativen gab es wohl außer dem "Sango Coin" keine. Von denen hab ich auch keinen Newsletter mehr bekommen seit dem Gerichtsurteil, das ich weiter oben beschrieb. Das scheint komplett versandet zu sein.

Nunja, wie @1miau schrieb ... dass immerhin eine "Referenz-Kryptowährung" deklariert wurde heißt für mich dass die Regierung weiterhin an Projekten mit Bitcoin interessiert ist. Mal sehen ob da noch was kommt. Ich werde versuchen dranzubleiben, auch wenn das bei einem französischsprachigen Land etwas mühsehliger ist ...

PS: Das Sango-Projekt selbst ist noch online, es werden auch alle Optionen - selbst die vom Gericht verbotene Staatsbürgerschaft - noch aufgelistet, es hatte aber wohl im März Deposit-Schwierigkeiten.

Yo uso altcoins desde 2013 aproximadamente. Especulé, las usé para pagar cosas para evitar las comisiones de BTC, et cétera. Sigo un poco con todo eso. Pero últimamente me limito a un grupo muy reducido, que son las que siguen aproximadamente el modelo de Bitcoin, es decir que no tienen una empresa detrás sino que son simplemente un proyecto abierto para un protocolo para transferir valor. Ejemplos son Monero, LTC, Groestlcoin, Doge, Signum ... Muy pocos de este grupo tienen realmente aceptación. Pero, para algunas cosas sirven, como para pagar montos pequeños. La mejor para pagar por ejemplo parece ser LTC en este momento, porque Doge es muy, muy volátil. Y Monero es el "estándar oro" para coins con funciones de privacidad, aunque Grin es interesante también ...

Hay algunos desarrollos a corto/mediano plazo que sí me dan esperanzas que esto podría cambiar. Aparecen cada vez más cadenas laterales interesantes (Stacks, Nomic ... - aunque la mayoría todavía con elementos centralizados, pero ya no son las federaciones estáticas como la de Liquid), y las "veteranas" como RSK incorporan cada vez más elementos descentralizados. Es muy interesante también el tema de los "rollups" que ya funcionan en Ethereum pero hay proyectos para recrearlos en BTC también aunque la mayoría necesitan alguna función que todavía no está presente en el código de BTC. Debido a que LN tiene algunas desventajas claras (como que el receptor del pago tiene que estar siempre en línea) veo que estas cadenas podrían revolucionar el tema de pagos con BTC.

Total post count: 7520

Thank you

Current number of posts (including this one): 7520
Rank: Legendary Member
Merit earned in the last 120 days: 414

(I can apply for a Hero spot. Merits were counted manually, I hope the number is correct .... Number updated with https://loyce.club/120days/)

Yes, such transactions are non-standard. The line in the Bitcoin core code is here in policy/policy.cpp. Miners can change this policy (like they did with the 3,9 MB Ordinals inscription) but most will abide it.

@1miau: Es ist leider größtenteils Ordinals-Spam, wie man hier auf meinem kleinen Dashboard auf "dune" sehen kann.

Die Belastung der Blöcke ist dabei seit Februar etwa gleich geblieben.

Auch diese NFT-Welle wird vorbei gehen, aber ich kann schon die Kritiker im englischen Forum etwas verstehen, die zum Teil von einem "Angriff" reden. Andererseits: Dem Preis könnte es gut tun, einmal weil NFTler von ETH auf BTC umsteigen, und dazu wird es (etwas) teurer, bei einem Dip schnell in Panik BTC auf eine Börse zu verschieben.

That's exactly the point: the incentives would have worked favouring small inscriptions, or NFT systems where mainly hashes of the content would be stored on-chain. NFTers would have to had become creative, for example you could imagine a system where the "possession" of a low-resolution image via Ordinals could also determine ownership of a high-resolution one stored on a sidechain.

(to try to answer my own question: I believe that it's a mix of "wanting to boost the fee market" and just liking the idea of large inscriptions.)

@tromp: Very interesting, thanks! So Monero was "hacked", too ... d'oh. I'll try to investigate further how MimbleWimble coins achieve this spam resistance, and if there's really no way for a tx sender to "leak" information about previous transactions, for example.

(Ah, and to those who still think Taproot is the culprit ... Doge has some weeks ago implemented "Doginals", completely with "legacy" methods - they have not even Segwit afaik. So no, Taproot wasn't necessary at all for this to work.)

Short answer: Because you can ... 

Long answer: A mechanism to create "series numbers" of satoshis was discussed already several years ago in this forum. I don't remember the exact year (and also not the link to the thread) but I mean it was around 2013. So it was only a matter of time until someone might have read the thread and simply implemented it.

What's my problem with Ordinals is not the "ordinal system" itself, but the Inscription feature. And here I do have a question to Casey Rodarmor (the creator):

Why did you create the NFT system as a Taproot hack, and not with the established data storing mechanisms, i.e. OP_RETURN? I know "it's cheaper", but I think if he had implemented it in a system where large NFTs would have been stored in several OP_RETURN transactions (or even better: on a data sidechain, where only the hashes would have been stored on the Bitcoin blockchain), people wouldn't have that many problems with it.

Wie im letzten Post vermutet ist der Bereich 28500-29000 nicht ganz leicht zu überwinden. Und das trotz der nur 0,25%igen Zinserhöhung der Fed. Könnte mir kurzfristig Gewinnmitnahmen und einen Rücksetzer auf ca. 25000 vorstellen. Aber vielleicht ja auch nicht

Weitere Stationen:

- 33000
- 41000
- 46000-47000
- in den 50ern scheint es im letzten Zyklus keinen nennenswerten Widerstand gegeben zu haben, daher dann schon 65-69000
- Moon