Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 13766. (Read 26712842 times)

If the solution you want is to totally prevent people from running fractional reserves, then no, the blockchain is not the solution. Perhaps if you could cram all of the functionality onto the blockchain itself it may be a solution. However, when you try to cram all of the functionality onto the blockchain itself, you run into a scaling issue. You can get a blockchain to scale, but this always comes at the cost of the network being more centralized.

I got to about 90% of purchases when I lived in Germany (I think gasoline was the final thing).

In the US it would have been so much easier. Bitcoin people in the US have it so easy for spending bitcoins but they don't even know it.

I seriously doubt Doug is the least bit nervous.  He is a pro, he knows his odds and is resigned to the outcome the fates deliver.

Also, he isn't exactly going hungry if he loses.

edit/ I see capslock beat me to it

So BTC is a solution, but it's really not a solution because someone can come up with a different solution on top of BTC which wouldn't really be a solution at all, thus making underlying BTC not a solution. Think i got it. And then BTC is having problem scaling so that's why they introduced a scaling solution called LN. Did i get it right?

Unfortunately, there is nothing to prevent someone from building a layer on top of a blockchain and issuing tokens that are supposed to be backed by deposits and then running a fractional reserve. (Many accuse Tether of doing just that.) Furthermore, blockchains have difficulty scaling. That is why BTC has resorted to the lightning network to attempt to address the scaling problem.

And this is the crux of the problem. BTC needs to find a way to decouple itself from fiat. Unfortunately, there is not enough adoption at this time to accomplish this. One would be really hard pressed to be able to fully purchase all of the goods and services they need directly with BTC.

Ok what If I modify my statement a bit.


Would you disagree that it is a tool that is, at least in theory, capable of combating this in a meaningful way? If so, would you agree that it is the first technology that has ever been invented that is potentially capable of doing this?

The main reason that we see so much scamminess in this space is that blockchain is largely about censorship resistance, which is for the most part only needed by people who would be censored, and, big surprise, it turns out that a lot of the people who would have been censored are people who would have been up to no good. IMAGINE THAT! Anyway, just because that sort of thing is the lowest hanging fruit and so developed out first, I don't think this means that blockchain technology will never find legitimate use cases in safeguarding against scams (like the double counting of precious metals reserves).

4 years is not a long time, it is a flash in the pan.

Agreed. Decentralized exchanges need to take hold.

Bisq is an ok start but p2p is not good for liquidity.

I started work on a decentralized exchange that acts just like a regular exchange with fiat. But it's not the simplest of things to accomplish, will take some time.

Must be one of those cases in which one questions whether everything in the whole word is a simulation, which remains doubtful on the existential level.

The fact that nocoiners, like you, seem to recognize some value in AI, thus you should recognize some value in bitcoin, too.. but some of the AI endorsing fucks are getting distracted by supposed value of various other cryptos rather than recognizing the real innovations of bitcoin...... similar to you, who seems to get distracted in recognizing value in PMs, it is like you are living in the past, yet you seem smart enough that even you probably don't believe the nonsense PM pumping bullshit that you spout nor the identity politics inflamatory posts, either.


That is a strawman argument, if I have ever seen one.



Only you troll shills are suggesting that regular peeps should be playing around with leverage, because you hope that you can cause peeps to perceive BTC investing as gambling rather than the long term value that it actually is.  Fact of the matter, Tera, remains that it does not matter exactly when you began to buy into bitcoin, including starting at $19,666, because if you maintain a prudent strategy and you continue to prudently invest in BTC, such as dollar cost averaging, incrementalism, accumulation and buying on dips, you are quite likely to thank yourselfie profusely in 3-5 years (and perhaps a shorter period of time) that you took an active approach to get involved in BTC and to take stake and accumulate as many BTC as you can within your reasonable means (perhaps using some leverage, but certainly not max leveraging anything because past BTC performance should teach any reasonable person that BTC is like to continue to be volatile and even downwardly manipulated below its fundamental value).

Those fucking nocoiners that didn't want to go all in max leveraged long at 10k.

I cannot believe how much money Google spent developing the JayJuanGee chat AI for these results.

I am not talking about nervous in terms of the cost of the bet, but in terms of the likelihood of winning the bet.  Yeah, sure, he is a media person, so there is some value in just making the bet, and therefore drawing attention to your person.

But, substantively, none of us knows the short-term price direction of bitcoin, and yeah each of the two of them were acting a bit cocky about their predictions, so that is part of the reason that they were willing to put down their bets (even though perhaps they are just playing the publicity, too)...     Sure, it is still possible that the BTC price bottom is in, and sure it is possible that BTC will never, ever, ever (at least before 2019) see sub $6k again, but part of my point about the seemingly likely Polk nervousness is that the odds are becoming less in his favor as the price continues to dip... and a question remains about whether the various price supports will hold above $6k in order to keep prices above $6k...

If Polk is in reality (which I have no doubt that he is), then he has got to feel a bit more nervous about his current odds as compared with what his odds were from just two weeks ago, when they made the bet.

I don't imagine he is nervous at all.  10k is a twinkly little bet for him.  Annoyed perhaps.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNu9x8PEXno

That doesn't change the fact that if EVERY household in Venezeula (32 million people) was mining, transaction volume on a few alts like Monero would be through the roof, as well as bitcoin itself, and they aren't....

anyone with a decent gpu can mine and be paid in bitcoin. You dont need an asic.
When folks ask if I still mine bitcoin I just say yeah.
Its not worth explaining that Im not in fact actually mining bitcoin.
I just sell my hash, and get paid in bitcoin. Same difference.

Zerohedge seems to have released some bullshit story concerning craptocurrencies and Venezuela today:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-25/nearly-every-home-caracas-hiding-crypto-mining-operation

They are obviously not mining bitcoin because Venezeula is not sitting on tons of Bitmain S9's, and bitcoin transaction volume is the same right now as when it was only $200-400.  Venezeula population is 32 million, so what chain are these millions of transactions supposedly taking place? lol.  And how many millions of users are online at Poloniex right now if they are mining some obscure coin and converting them?  

Poloniex users currently online: 6431

(((trust me))))
BTI is going to be making waves in the grassroots/community cypherpunk 2018 space Bitcoin foreverrrrr >_> KILL ALL TOKENS!!!!

https://freiexchange.com/market/BTI/BTC

Except not even exchanges are currently using that "feature".

Thanks to blockchain exchanges could be already guaranteeing they don't run fractional reserve. It would be as simple as this:

- Every exchange user is given a "unique private identifier".
- Every day, the exchange publish a balance sheet that comprises a listing of all UPI's and its individual balances. The total is the minimum amount of reserves the exchange must control to prove absence of fractional reserve "banking".
- Simultaneously the exchange publish a listing of addresses which individual balances (can be checked on their respective blockchains for accuracy) sum, at least, the total needed. Obviously they sign a timestamped code with those addresses to prove ownership.

- Individual users could check their balances are included and accounted for in the balance sheet.

... But not a single one exchange is still doing this. Wonder why.....

And what good is my AR15 going to do against someone who takes me by surprise or a group that outnumbers me? Perhaps I can ally myself with other people, and form a militia. But then I have to trust those people. In the end, it's the people you trust that have the highest probability of screwing you over. It's a dilemma, either I can trust no one, strike out on my own,  and end up being overwhelmed. Or I can put my trust in other people and end up getting the shaft.

I haven't seen anything from DPolk, recently, but I would imagine that he must be getting a bit nervous..... Tone Vays did have the better side of the bet in terms of being able to use the bet as leverage.. but it did seem that DPolk did make what seemed to be a reasonably decent bet in which odds seemed to be working pretty good for him.. and not so much now..