Standard casinos don't provide any insights on their holds and payouts, so there's not even a need to rig the system. Accordingly they get away with much lower payouts then crypto casinos since people don't know what to expect in terms of winnings anyway.

Overall I regard the transparency introduced to gambling by provable fair crypto casinos as a net benefit. Unfortunately it doesn't seem like the concept will see usage outside of crypto circles any time soon, even though provable fair gambling doesn't even depend on cryptocurrencies.

Running crypto casino games directly on a blockchain seems more like a gimmick though.

Pretty much this. Patent and copyright law vary from country to country, so before these are normalized across jurisdictions -- pretty much impossible at this point in history -- there's little to be gained by storing them in a global distributed database.

And even once these legal questions have been resolved, you'd still have to rely on centralized authorities to evaluate and confirm or deny patent requests making the usage of a blockchain rather pointless.




Looking at patent trolls and patent warfare between multinational corporations I'm not sure I agree on that, but it does seem to be the least broken system so far.

It doesn't seem like the current problems with patents can be fixed via blockchains though.

I guess part of the reason why eCash failed was because it relied on centralized issuance and therefore was still too tightly coupled to classical banking and the DigiCash corporation itself. Too that end it was more like a hyper-advanced anonymous prepaid payment system than a modern cryptocurrency.

I'd love to think that eCash / DigiCash' failure was mostly due to being too early, but seeing how GNU Taler (ie. a direct descendant of eCash) is also failing to gain traction there seem to be other factors at play as well though.

...but it was the first to come up with a solution! ☞☞

That is to say, Bitcoin might not be the first digital currency but it's the first cryptocurrency (ie. the first decentralized, counterfeit-proof digital currency).

It's easy to forget these days how big of a deal this was, but there's no precedent for this kind of money before Bitcoin.

Maybe I'm an OG magic internet money wizard maximalist but nothing will ever come close to the original painting. Nothing.

Versuchs mal im Englischsprachigen Wallet Forum, vielleicht hast du dort mehr Glück:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=37.0

Zwecks Referenz, hier auch der (quasi?) offizielle Thread zu Wasabi:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5064006.0

Persönlich hab ich Wasabi zwar schon verwendet aber jetzt nicht in dem Ausmaß dass ich dir zu deinen konkreten Fragen verlässlich Auskunft geben könnte.

Errr... why would you add a rolling checkpoint if in the case of a chain split you go for the chain with the most accumulated work anyways? That's what current implementations do already, except automatically and without requiring centrally coordinated manual intervention.

This article should give a pretty comprehensive overview of Bitcoin's foundational predecessors and building blocks:

https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=3136559

Hashcash's PoW is an important part of Bitcoin's history but it actually goes even deeper than that

I was also referring to projects being financially sustainable Good catch though, I completely overlooked the double meaning.

What I'm saying is that some projects are only after investor money, rather than trying to provide actual solutions.

And if investor money is all you care about, ie. your actual business model is just raising as much money as possible, then financial sustainability matters very little. In that case your project needs to be just barely sustainable enough that you don't get called out as the scam you are and that it floats long enough for the founders to gracefully exit the project.

Now I'm not saying that all buzzword projects start out like that, but I do have a suspicion that a significant portion of them is.

Thank you for this post.

There was something iffy about reorg prevention that I couldn't quite put my finger on but now I know what it was.

If a technology has been provably used before any patent that follows it can be deemed null and void, regardless of whether the original creators patented it or not.

Once something is out there, it's out there. You can't patent something that is already commonly used.

This assumes that these projects aim for anything other than raising money. If raising money is your only goal you don't need to be sustainable.

Each miner will keep whatever transaction they saw first in their respective mempool and dismiss the other. Which transaction then gets added to the blockchain depends on whether the successful miner saw transaction A or transaction B first (and subsequently whether that block then gets orphaned or built upon).

Exceptions such as RBF apply though.

Guter move, bei Summen in der Größenordnung kann es durchaus Sinn machen mit Exchanges direkt in Kontakt zu treten. Vor allem wenn es ein einmaliger Handel quasi aus dem nichts ist

Das die das jetzt mit der Compliance Abteilung abklären müssen ist zwar mühsam aber zeigt das du zumindest einen Schritt in die richtige Richtung gemacht hast. Besser vorher abgeklärt als im nachhinein die Finanzpolizei vor der Tür

Those patents are probably very specific use cases that don't necessarily conflict with Bitcoin. You can't patent anything that provably existed before your request, so existing crypto projects should be safe.

The question is whether it will stiffle innovation further down the road. However since software patents are not universally accepted it will be close to impossible to take legal action against any decentralized international project.

According to this article by the end of 2018 governments all across the globe had confiscated about BTC 453,000 i.e. 2.6% of the global supply at the time.

https://www.theblockcrypto.com/genesis/2944/analysis-the-u-s-has-seized-nearly-200000-bitcoins-to-date-global-confiscations-are-up-to-453000

Looking at CoinMarketCap the last 24h saw a trading volume of about BTC 3,000,000.

So looking at these numbers the global government holdings of Bitcoin are barely enough to cause a market dip for maybe a day or two, so... just another Tuesday when it comes to crypto.

Of course that was 2018 so maybe the governments already increased their stashes since then.

Except they didn't even held onto the aforementioned amount and have maybe a tenth of that left so like 0.2% of the current global supply.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯



"They"

Sure.

Since he spent AU$76,000 worth of computing power on mining AU$9,000 worth of crypto I'd say it's the kind of profitable where you only make money if you're not the one paying for electricity and hardware.

Oof. Diverting AU$76,000 worth of computing power to mine AU$9,400 worth of cryptocurrency. Such a muppet.

Also, what did he assume would happen once someone noticed the performance degradation? Happily coinciding with him starting to work there, handling the very infrastructure that is all of a sudden causing troubles?

(no one will ever beat the Russian nuclear scientists though, bringing an airgapped nuclear system online...)

If it's so easy and profitable why haven't any of those scenarios happened yet though? Especially the first scenario is something where moving first and as soon as possible would be of utmost importance.

I'm afraid all you can do in this situation is wait for Coinbase to respond.

If you're lucky Coinbase has changed their policy regarding wrongfully sent tokens (some exchanges offer recovery for a fee, albeit a hefty one). Otherwise I'm sorry to say that like OP you'll be out of luck.