|
JacksClub Username: heretik
Prediction: $63,144
|
|
|
|
|
07 - HeRetiK
09 - HeRetiK
ID: 1287839
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin ist nach wie vor ein hochspekulatives Asset, hier investieren vor allem Großanleger auch nur mit Horizonten über 10 Jahre. Ich halte daher den Artikel und dessen Aussage, dass aus den ETFs das Kapital rausgenommen wird (bzw. kein neues hinzukommt) um das in verzinste Produkte zu schieben, für etwas weit hergeholt!
Jein, dasselbe passiert ja auch mit klassischen aktienbasierten Indexfonds: Der Leitzins steigt, die Aktienpreise fallen. Das liegt auf der einen Seite daran das den Firmen durch höhere Zinsen weniger Kapital zur Verfügung steht und deswegen deren Wachstum beeinträchtigt wird. Auf der anderen Seite hast du Investoren für die durch dieses Schwächeln Aktien unattraktiver werden während verzinste Produkte interessanter werden. Und nachdem das allen Marktteilnehmern bewusst ist, hast du ein bisschen eine Feedbackschleife. Anders gesagt, der Bitcoinkurs hat es immer noch nicht ganz geschafft sich von der Stimmung am Aktienmarkt zu entkoppeln. In diesem Kontext dürften die steigenden Bitcoin- und Aktienkurse durch die Erwartung auf eine Leitzinssenkung bedingt gewesen sein (wobei bei Bitcoin natürlich noch andere Faktoren mit rein spielen). Nachdem das wohl nicht eintreffen wird stagnieren die Märkte (betrifft nicht nur Bitcoin, die Aktienmärkte sind derzeit auch am schwächeln). |
|
|
|
Also NFTs. Obviously one can only ever speculate about each specific case (I guess once you reach a certain amount of wealth, money becomes mostly meaningless), but this is how you launder money in the big leagues. And you don't even have to get your hands dirty by dealing with mixers and the like.
I had already heard about NFTs for money laundering and now this is added. I mean, is it that easy? You have undeclared money from drug or arms sales and you sell something worth one satoshi for a couple of millions, that's it? The only thing is that you will pay 20% tax or so depending on where your tax residence is but you already have clean money. Although I'm sure from that moment on the eyes of the authorities will be on you, if they weren't already. More the other way round: Say you want to sell arms and drugs wholesale. You can't just receive a couple of millions in fiat or cryptocurrency, lest you'll have to answer a couple of questions. You can't write a fake invoice for goods and services either, because someone will notice that the goods don't exist or that they've been sold way above market. But selling a JPG of an ugly monkey? Might give some media attention but also enough plausible deniability since there's no such thing as above-market for a non-fungible rare good (if you want to call it that). There's nothing to objectively compare it to. All of that is purely speculative, of course, and I'm sure a lot of folks are in the market just for the hype and speculation. I'm just saying that this is how such a scheme probably would work. It's a bit of a loophole, much how it isn't corruption if it's called lobbying and how it isn't a bribe if a politician goes into "consulting". |
|
|
|
I didn't know that was a thing. But I guess of course it is. I instantly think 'money laundering' when I see auctions like this, over $2 million dollars worth of Bitcoin has moved hands, probably will get liquidated and it is entirely clean money now. This is a thought I have for the entire art industry.
- Jay -
Also NFTs. Obviously one can only ever speculate about each specific case (I guess once you reach a certain amount of wealth, money becomes mostly meaningless), but this is how you launder money in the big leagues. And you don't even have to get your hands dirty by dealing with mixers and the like. |
|
|
|
I think this issue lies at the heart of the problem: Creating a truly decentralized system is hard, and doesn't pay. At least not in the way a system with traces of centralization does. And most users don't care that much about decentralization anyway, so the financial incentive of merely pretending to be decentralized is incredibly high.
As Z390 said, we got really lucky with satoshi's sacrifice. And I'm not sure we'll have a "second coming", now that it's clear that there's a lot of money to be made.
Bitcoin was financially worthless with Satoshi had created it, there was only the incentive of decentralization. There's also a strange beauty to this: Bitcoin is decentralized and independent the way it is because there was no real incentive to run this as anything else but a "hobby" project, albeit a highly sophisticated one (of course speculation existed from its very beginning, but Bitcoin's success was far from certain). Yet without being as decentralized and independent the way it was from the get-go, I doubt Bitcoin would have ever gotten the traction it did. The only problem is, Satoshi had the heart to be anonymous, and i'm not sure we can find another character like that, since most of us who are posting here or elsewhere in Bitcoinsphere have already blown their covers.
While satoshi's anonymity is a great bonus I don't think it's even that big a factor. It's the challenge of finding someone with the expertise to pull something like this off and the willingness to completely leave it into the hands of the public. |
|
|
|
- There are similarly server dependent DEXes that suffer from the same flaw just because the developer of that DEX wanted to make money (through fees) not develop something decentralized to solve a problem!
I think this issue lies at the heart of the problem: Creating a truly decentralized system is hard, and doesn't pay. At least not in the way a system with traces of centralization does. And most users don't care that much about decentralization anyway, so the financial incentive of merely pretending to be decentralized is incredibly high. As Z390 said, we got really lucky with satoshi's sacrifice. And I'm not sure we'll have a "second coming", now that it's clear that there's a lot of money to be made. |
|
|
|
This presumes two things are possible:
1.) Transactions can be accurately classified/segmented into meaningful bins (perhaps even simply binning by absolute memory size is sufficient).
2.) Consensus rules can be applied and verified at a network level
That's the thing tho, neither is trivially solveable, if it even can be solved at all. 1) Reliable transaction classification would require leaky abstractions as I mentioned above. That's bad in regular software development, worse when it comes to the Bitcoin base layer. What exactly do you mean by "absolute memory size"? Are you referring to the size a transaction takes up in the mempool? 2) How exactly would you achieve dynamic consensus? Based on nodes is prone to Sybil attacks. Based on hashrate would lead to chain splits. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
