Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 298 results by ccryptopark
What I’m really excited for is the convergence of the metaverse with physical goods.
Companies like 4K that are creating physically-backed NFTs will eventually enable users to bring their assets to the metaverse.
Companies like 4K that are creating physically-backed NFTs will eventually enable users to bring their assets to the metaverse.
The concept of NFTs in the blockchain used to represent real life items and assets is an amazing one. I think there should however be a way of verifying the authenticity of the said item of the Blockchain. This will help avoid cases of counterfeit or copyrights.
With NFT valuable itens like baseball cards, etc can be listed on the Blockchain and retain its true value
With NFT valuable itens like baseball cards, etc can be listed on the Blockchain and retain its true value
What’s interesting about what 4K is doing is that they’re authenticating all items that come in. Based off your f my conversation with the team they’re going to show people how they authenticate items so it’s not some process people normally “trust” like with jewelers.
I sorta agree. Collectibles are limited. But if we’re thinking high value goods like art, jewelry, Pokémon cards, it’s a lot of work to insure and ship back and forth. Why not send it to someone like 4K to authenticate, store, and issue an NFT? That way if you sell the NFT the buyer can do the same or burn the NFT to redeem the actual item. There’s really a one time cost of sending it in.
Not to mention that auction houses charge obscene amounts to sell high end items. Using blockchain cuts down fees (I imagine) by like 99%
Not to mention that auction houses charge obscene amounts to sell high end items. Using blockchain cuts down fees (I imagine) by like 99%
I think there's no need for that as it normally becomes collectible if an item physically is limited. You don't have to put that as an NFT because you can keep or buy it as is. That depends on the manufacturer or maker or seller of that item if it's limited and that's why most NFTs are worth it because they're limited-made. Maybe, someday in the next years that there will be a physical NFT that they have to integrate because they're looking at it as another trend to adapt.
I honestly think there’s a way to marry both worlds. I’d imagine that the person that owns a Picasso would love to leverage it somehow. They store it in a vault regardless, so why not issue an NFT for it so you can seamlessly (and cheaply) sell/transfer ownership without having to insure, ship, auction it(get charged crazy fees for doing so)?
Right now NFTs are purely digital art. There’s a whole realm of possibilities if we’re talking collectible physical assets
Right now NFTs are purely digital art. There’s a whole realm of possibilities if we’re talking collectible physical assets
Seems like a gold card you want yeah? I thinj its bettet to stay decentralized and server its purpose through digital aspect alone. I like the idea however, nft usage for physically backed isny something mroe trader or collector would like. Maybe for some they want but I rather pick a personal art instead if thats the case. Nft is created and trend with a purpose, better to stay as it is.
For us crypto folk we can grasp the idea of decentralizing ownership, but for the everyday person it makes sense to use a physical asset like a watch because there’s already an understanding of value.
No matter what we do (aside from DAO’s) it’ll always be centralized. Opensea, coinbase, you name it.
I thought 4K’s concept was interesting because they’re essentially a physical validator where they store, insure, and issue you an NFT for your item. If you think about legacy marketplaces like EBay there’s so much headache that goes into buying/selling and even then there’s fraud that can happen.
I even joined their discord and asked the team what you can do with the NFT and they said you’ll be able to plug them into defi products in the future. For me personally this is a game changer. Imagine a watch collector leveraging their watch collection and whenever they want it, they just burn the NFT and it gets shipped to them.
I agree about the gold backed crypto. The problem was that it based based on “trust” that the hold actually existed.
No matter what we do (aside from DAO’s) it’ll always be centralized. Opensea, coinbase, you name it.
I thought 4K’s concept was interesting because they’re essentially a physical validator where they store, insure, and issue you an NFT for your item. If you think about legacy marketplaces like EBay there’s so much headache that goes into buying/selling and even then there’s fraud that can happen.
I even joined their discord and asked the team what you can do with the NFT and they said you’ll be able to plug them into defi products in the future. For me personally this is a game changer. Imagine a watch collector leveraging their watch collection and whenever they want it, they just burn the NFT and it gets shipped to them.
I agree about the gold backed crypto. The problem was that it based based on “trust” that the hold actually existed.
What's the point of physically backed NFTs? I don't get it.
The whole point of NFTs in my opinion is to try to decentralize ownership. But if you back something with a physical asset, all of a sudden you are once again concentrating the value of the asset onto the physical object that is under custody of someone.
I'm sure it'll be done but I don't think that it'll be big. Just like how gold backed cryptos don't make sense.
The whole point of NFTs in my opinion is to try to decentralize ownership. But if you back something with a physical asset, all of a sudden you are once again concentrating the value of the asset onto the physical object that is under custody of someone.
I'm sure it'll be done but I don't think that it'll be big. Just like how gold backed cryptos don't make sense.
⭐ Merited by amishmanish (2)
Hey everyone, it’s been a while since I’ve been on here. I’ve been lurking on Twitter and honestly I can’t get with the whole NFT thing. What about guys? This feels like the ICO phase back in 2017-2018.
The closest I’ve gotten to getting into NFTs is through companies like 4K where you can essentially physically-back NFTs with physical goods like expensive watches or shoes. Thought this was a novel concept and really seems like it’s going to be the next phase of NFTs. Anyone heard of them? Are there other companies working on similar things?
How I heard about them: https://www.coindesk.com/business/2021/07/20/rolexes-in-defi-nft-marketplace-4k-raises-3m-to-combine-nfts-and-luxury-goods/
The closest I’ve gotten to getting into NFTs is through companies like 4K where you can essentially physically-back NFTs with physical goods like expensive watches or shoes. Thought this was a novel concept and really seems like it’s going to be the next phase of NFTs. Anyone heard of them? Are there other companies working on similar things?
How I heard about them: https://www.coindesk.com/business/2021/07/20/rolexes-in-defi-nft-marketplace-4k-raises-3m-to-combine-nfts-and-luxury-goods/
Re: Debunking the "Bitcoin is an environmental disaster" argument.
Damn I’ve been off this forum for the past year and a half and it’s awesome to see this community is still thriving. Great points made! Will definitely share this post with friends that ever bring this up.
Recently I often heard bitcoin critics telling me that "Bitcoin is too polluting", "Bitcoin waste too much energy" or other similar arguments.
Those arguments are as as as bitcoin, even Satoshi discussed those have been debunked a few several times, but I am trying here to organise the material to counter those accusations.
I will try to "answer" specific claims, with a few counterarguments, supported by data, websites and references. so that it will be easier to organise a "defence" of Bitcoin, in the unlikely case Bitcoin need a defence.
Noahbjectivity on Bitcoin Mining
A few "all rounders" long form:
Other Useful Links:
If you have any other suggestion, please point me in the right direction, and I will try to address every issue.
Those arguments are as as as bitcoin, even Satoshi discussed those have been debunked a few several times, but I am trying here to organise the material to counter those accusations.
I will try to "answer" specific claims, with a few counterarguments, supported by data, websites and references. so that it will be easier to organise a "defence" of Bitcoin, in the unlikely case Bitcoin need a defence.
- Accusation
- The bitcoin network consumes as much electricity as XXX
- Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index
- Defence
- Televisions, aeroplanes,Christmas lights, plastic, all require enormous amounts of energy to be produced and used: what is the amount of energy considered excessive to produce them? Why is this calculation done for Bitcoin and not for other goods?
- According to data from the Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index devices kept on standby, in the United States alone, could power the bitcoin network for more than a year and a half. (a figure that has been constantly decreasing)
- Mining bitcoin is actually quite environmentally friendly, compared to mining other Store of Value (Gold) QuoteBitcoin is recognised as a store of value making it comparable to gold. In 2020, 3,200 tonnes of gold was mined equating to approximately 90,301,440 million tonnes of CO2 emitted.https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/m1y2va/bitcoins_carbon_footprint_a_fair_comparison/
In comparison Bitcoin is estimated to emit around 37 million tonnes of CO2 over the course of 2021, with China powering 65% of the hash rate in March 2021. China pledges to be net zero by 2050 along with most of the world under the Paris agreement. Under the assumption, this is achieved this would indicate Bitcoin would be powered by renewable energy by 2050 making it a zero-carbon technology. In addition, gold mining is renowned to be one of the most destructive industries responsible for polluting drinking water with cyanide, mercury and other heavy metals, whilst destroying pristine environments and causing damaging health effects. Removing reliance on the need for gold not only has the potential to decarbonise the gold reserve industry but also reduces these negative environmental and health impacts. However, the reliance on countries sticking to the Paris Agreement is needed in order to decarbonise Bitcoin.
Edit: Information on China’s energy policy
China uses the most cost effective renewables and could viably generate 60% of its energy with green energy by 2030. It is estimated the renewable energy implementation could save China around 11% in monetary cost. Feasibly following the laws of economics Bitcoin miners will be more likely to use renewable energy sources if they are cheaper. Therefore, reducing Bitcoin’s carbon footprint. - Other human activities produce comparable results.
According to a recent study, watching Netflix for an hour produces 100g of CO2
Netflix has 205 millions of subscribers.
Each Netflix subscribers watch two hours daily, on average.
Hence Netflix streamed 149 billions of hours last year.
If each of this hour is 100g of CO2, then to watch Netflix 15 millions metric tons of have been added to the atmosphere every year. Netflix alone is almost one third of the Whole Bitcoin industry, guess what happens when we add other services.
- Accusation
- Accusation
- Miners in China ravage the environment to produce Bitcoin. A large part of electricity production in China is made with fossil sources, especially coal, and the ecological footprint of Bitcoin is unsustainable.
- Defence
- Miners by their nature have an incentive to go in search of energy at the lowest possible cost. The energy market like any other is governed by the laws of supply and demand. The energy that is cheap is typically that produced in excess that otherwise would not be exploited and literally wasted.
- Many miners are concentrated in large hydroelectric plants (for example in China) where the levels of production surplus are enormous and can thus obtain very low energy prices. Suffice it to say that in 2017, compared to 250twh produced by the Yunnan dams, 155twh were used (95twh thrown away, since they cannot be stored).
- Recent studies show that bitcoin mining uses 39% energy from renewable sources (solar, hydroelectric, wind, geothermal, etc.) and 25% from energy derived from nuclear power and, to a minimum, fossil fuels. This percentage is steadily increasing, especially in China, where the transition to low carbon footprint production is happening more rapidly.
- Bitcoin helps the efficiency of the energy industry,for example it can help prevent "Renewable Curtailment" as well as making it profitable to capture gas otherwise destined to be burned in gas flaringwhich encourages producers to reduce carbon emissions. Low-carbon energy projects such as hydroelectric, nuclear or renewables can be made profitable by selling the excess energy produced to the mining of bitcoin.
- A very large part of the energy produced is not used correctly, partly because it despairs in unprofitable uses (dispersion in networks, thermal dispersion in endothermic engines etc ...) partly because it is produced in places or moments where not necessary (eg: power plants off-peak nuclear power plants, etc). Well, in this space, Bitcoin can make a huge contribution, by efficiently using resources that would otherwise be wasted.QuoteNotice that rejected energy accounts for around two-thirds of all electricity generation. This energy is produced but ultimately does not go to useful work. The amount wasted annually is around 66.7 quadrillions BTU’s (“quads”) of energy. For perspective, that is the energy equivalent of wasting 2.3 billion metric tons of coal every year.QuoteThe potential for Bitcoin-powered renewables is already evident in China. A 2019 report by Coinshares found that approximately 75% of Bitcoin mining comes from renewable energy sources, much of which stems from newly created hydroelectricity. These new revenue streams have brought power plants online which otherwise would not have been economically viable given existing.
- Bitcoin is a battery.QuoteSo, if we think of Bitcoin as a battery, what can we do with it? The key properties of Bitcoin’s battery are: 1) always on and permissionless (no need to find customers, just plug and go) and 2) naturally seeking low-cost electricity: it will always buy when the price is right.
Given those properties, Bitcoin’s battery can assist renewable builds (and electric grids more generally) in a number of ways:- Interconnection queues: when you develop new energy resources, you must apply to get them connected to the grid. Texas alone has over 100 GW of renewables in its queue. These queues can take years to clear. In the meantime, these assets could be online and earning Bitcoin.
Project finance: Renewable developers need capital to finance build-outs before they have customers. Bitcoin’s battery is always ready to be the first customer. - Geographic issues: Sometimes the sunniest, windiest places are not the ones with the most customers, so it’s hard to justify the development of new renewables. Bitcoin’s battery solves this, becoming a “virtual transmission line” of sorts.
- Timing & grid balance: Sometimes when the sun shines and when the wind blows is not when we need the most electricity. Yet, electric grids are marketplaces that must stay in perfect balance between supply and demand. Therefore, grid-connected renewables often have to “curtail” (turn off) if the are producing too much energy at the wrong time. Bitcoin’s battery is ready to buy 24/7/365 when the price is right, and turning up and down as needed, and participating via direct power purchase agreements as well as via demand response programs.
- Underperformance: Related to the timing & balance issues above, often times, renewables produce more energy than is needed on their grid, leading to subpar financial performance. Bitcoin’s battery is ready to buy if no one else will.
- Cleaning the grid: Even outside of renewable generation, Bitcoin’s battery can help improve both emissions and the energy mix. For example, Crusoe Energy attaches efficient turbines and mining equipment to existing gas flaring sites, both improving emissions and converting energy into Bitcoin’s battery. Taking this a step further, you could even then take those profits and reinvest them in on-grid renewables elsewhere, another twist on the idea of Bitcoin as a “virtual transmission line” (aka battery).
- Interconnection queues: when you develop new energy resources, you must apply to get them connected to the grid. Texas alone has over 100 GW of renewables in its queue. These queues can take years to clear. In the meantime, these assets could be online and earning Bitcoin.
- Accusation
- Accusation
- The Bitcoin network is maximally inefficient. PoW leads to the consumption of a huge amount of energy for each Bitcoin transaction if for example, we compare it with VISA.
- Defence
- The energy consumed by the Bitcoin network is also used to secure it, since an attacker who wants to try to destroy Bitcoin would have to use (therefore buy or produce) a higher amount of energy compared to that used by the Bitcoin network.
- Il PoW is efficientand mining is a highly competitive industry. Any slightest energy inefficiency is punished by lower profitability. This guides miners towards the highest possible efficiency.
- The cost of mining is not the energy cost of transactions, and certain metrics they claim to compare eg. the cost of a single bitcoin transaction with the energy consumption of a transaction on the Visa circuit are completely meaningless. The mining mechanism serves precisely to make the system safe (from double-spending to other possible attacks on the network) in a trustless network, i.e. without a central authority that effectively updates the ledger. The only honest comparison would be with the overall cost of circuit security systems and banking systems. How much is spent globally each year to make banks and payment systems safe and reliable? With all the dedicated servers, data centres, network infrastructures, procedures constantly running for authorization, settlement, clearing, reconciliation, etc. Not to mention the costs for the construction, operation, maintenance and surveillance of ATMs, bank branches, vaults and related security systems, etc.
- In a very well written article by Conio's Guido D.Assori (who signed the very first Segwit transaction) says this is a feature, not a bug.
Here a courtesy translation of this specific part of the article.QuoteThe third attack would be that Bitcoin would move 7 transactions per second and that in a nutshell for such a system even a few kilowatts now would be wasted (curious, then, that Attivissimo remembers this after accepting Bitcoin donations for years, on its blog, of this great problem).
Quickly: this number, unfortunately, arises from a profound misunderstanding of the real decoupling between the technological infrastructure called "blockchain" and the transfer of value in Bitcoin.
It is frequent, but this does not make it any less wrong.
Premise: "It's a feature!", Or rather the size of the Blockchain is deliberately small.
Being able to write on a blockchain must be a luxury, so that it remains decentralized, so that everyone, at any time and with a relatively low effort, can independently verify the correctness of transactions on the network, and not just the large banking institutions.
However, nowadays, at every moment of the day, Bitcoins, or contracts that are related to their value, are brokered and traded on cryptocurrency exchanges, on custodial platforms, by means of pegged tokens, on sidechains, on Lighting Networks, by means of CFDs. , with various levels of enforcement.
And this happens through a number of transactions that are much more than 7 per second, believe me! Claiming the opposite would be like expecting our morning coffee paid for at the bar to be recorded by all the backups of all the nodes of all the Eurozone interbank circuits.
So how many transactions, really?
In general, it is a non-measurable number, and it will be less and less, the estimates will be more and more heuristic, also thanks to privacy-preserving platforms.
We can say, to give a general idea, that every transaction that takes place on an order book of any platform, which represents Bitcoin, can only exist thanks to the fact that, underneath, there is the Proof Of Work which, when necessary, allows settlement of a precise state of a chain of transactions of indefinite length (my token goes to you, you give it to him, you give it to the other, who breaks it in three and gives it to the other, who collects 8 ). Aren't you going to expect all the coins you exchange to end up written down somewhere?
Quite simply, people every day rely on intermediaries to exchange Bitcoin value without using a blockchain directly.
The global concept of decentralization is maintained, relocation is increased with confidence in the last mile (not always! LN!) But the connection element always remains the last, only, true, mandatory, a digital ledger in which the compensation movements.
Comparing, therefore, the phantom 7 transactions (which is a number that was good in 2013, today there are many more even on-chain) to the world's ability to transact Bitcoin, and tie it to the PoW, is a bit like expecting that there are, at all times, a sufficient quantity of vans to move all the gold in all the vaults of the world that intend to exchange gold.
Bitcoin is not a payment system, but a settlement system. Therefore, the comparison should not be made with payment circuits (Credit Cards), but with the various settlement layers (SWIFT, CHIPS, FedWire ) o Fedwire.
On this particular aspect, please consider reading A Closer Look at the Environmental Impact of Bitcoin MiningQuote
Bitcoin is a settlement system, not a payments aggregator
First things first. What is Bitcoin[1] and what is it not?
Bitcoin is a settlement system like FedWire, it is not a payments aggregator like Visa. I constantly see Bitcoin compared to Visa, MasterCard, or PayPal, and this is the main source of mathematical atrocities whereby Bitcoin’s overall electricity cost is divided by its transactions and then compared to something it’s not. Energy use per settlement transaction is a nonsensical metric by which to judge Bitcoin’s energy use.
Just like the 800,000 or so daily FedWire transactions are not a good measure of the total amount of daily Dollar (USD) transactions, Bitcoin’s 325,000[2] or so daily transactions are not a good measure of the total amount of daily bitcoin (BTC/XBT) transactions. Most bitcoin transactions are not visible. They take place inside the payment aggregation systems of exchanges, on the Lightning network, and yes, even inside of actual aggregators like PayPal, Square, or MasterCard. Only periodically are they settled onto the Bitcoin blockchain as visible transactions.
Solutions like this are referred to as network layering. This is a tried and tested approach to separating casual retail transactions from heavier settlement transactions and it is exactly how we already do things in the fiat monetary and payment systems. In such a system, the base layer, like FedWire (or Bitcoin), only acts as the final arbitrator of settlement transactions, everything else, and that is the vast majority of all transactions, happen in higher payment aggregation layers, which are often entirely different systems.
In other words, Bitcoin is not a competitor to Visa, MasterCard or Paypal. Bitcoin is an independent monetary system that aggregators can make use of.
Presenting Bitcoin’s electricity consumption in terms of its daily number of settlement transactions is a red herring. - Similar considerations can be made for a comparison between gold and bitcoin as "digital gold", and then in addition to the costs for the safe custody of gold, those for its mining, refining, smelting, transport, etc. should also be added. I challenge anyone to argue that all this can be considered particularly "green", but strangely I have never heard anyone complain and ask to ban gold for its environmental impact.
- Accusation
Noahbjectivity on Bitcoin Mining
Quote
The Bloomberg columnist Noah Smith has a lot of thoughts on Bitcoin. Some of them are really solid and engage with the reality of the protocol itself, which is rare for a member of the mainstream media circuit. He also discloses that he owns Bitcoin, which is impressive for an economist and a member of the establishment. So I’m pretty happy with him overall. I don’t want this piece to be interpreted as a blanket critique of Noah’s stance on Bitcoin. However, Noah’s recent column in Bloomberg, Bitcoin Miners are on a Path to Self-Destruction, makes a few claims that warrant a response.
Noah’s basic premise is that Bitcoin miners are effectively hogging the grid in the various places where they operate and risk getting banned entirely. Not only is the notion of a global coordinated ban on mining far fetched, but Noah relies on a few claims that are dubious at best. Let’s investigate.
Noah’s basic premise is that Bitcoin miners are effectively hogging the grid in the various places where they operate and risk getting banned entirely. Not only is the notion of a global coordinated ban on mining far fetched, but Noah relies on a few claims that are dubious at best. Let’s investigate.
A few "all rounders" long form:
- Bitcoin Energy Consumption written by Paul Veradittakit from Pantera Capital.
How Much Energy Does Bitcoin Actually Consume? by Nic Carter
- Bitcoin is Key to an Abundant, Clean Energy Futureby Square
Other Useful Links:
- 2020 gold produced
- Gold CO2 estimate
- Paris Agreement
- Environmental impact of gold
- China’s renewable energy
If you have any other suggestion, please point me in the right direction, and I will try to address every issue.
I would love to have a general conversation around mixers and if they are legal. I've heard both sides. Would be great to have someone involved in the legal side of things like Ciphertrace or a regulator to shed light on this topic
I didn't realize there were multiple companies competing to fix this recommendation. I had heard about TRISA before but the others not so much. I know these aren't laws yet but instead recommendations so it'll be interesting to see what exchanges choose to do
Re: CipherTrace Enters Race to Solve Crypto's FATF Compliance Headache
Right, they going to like "flex" their muscle again, maybe ala BTC-E seizure most likely in the future. Interpol/EUROPOL also have this sort of mentality as in the case of Bestmixer.io last May.
I don't think the BTC-e seizure went at all like the US government was hoping. In many ways, it was an embarrassment. They weren't able to seize any funds up front, arresting Vinnik netted absolutely nothing, and BTC-e reemerged a month or so later. That experience probably showed the DOJ how difficult it is to target crypto services who are scattered across many borders, and who employ proper operational security. I believe the US government has wanted to take down Bitfinex for years -- the DOJ and CFTC have been investigating them since at least 2017 and probably earlier. That they haven't suggests that they can't, at least not yet.
Targeting mixers (who don't even touch fiat money) is even more problematic for governments. An honest mixer can easily recover from authorities shutting down clearnet domains or seizing servers. New infrastructure can be built within days and proper encryption would protect all customer funds in the meantime.
But the Bestmixer case -- and subsequent disappearance of BitBlender -- highlights the biggest problem for us: Law enforcement temporarily shutting down a mixer creates an opportunity for them to exit scam.
I am almost positive Ciphertrace's technology can still trace movements of transactions even after they've gone through a mixer
Token Network is looking to make it easier for businesses to trade globally without any issues. The goal is to level out any intermediaries. The cool thing about Token Network is that it is an open-source built using NULS Chain Factory.
Token Network is a proof of credit blockchain with smart e-commerce contracts that allow e-comm businesses to start using blockchain for their own businesses.
What are your thoughts on this system? Thoughts on being built with NULS?
https://medium.com/@nuls/ama-sco-lab-interviews-token-network-9b6301afc05a
Token Network is a proof of credit blockchain with smart e-commerce contracts that allow e-comm businesses to start using blockchain for their own businesses.
What are your thoughts on this system? Thoughts on being built with NULS?
https://medium.com/@nuls/ama-sco-lab-interviews-token-network-9b6301afc05a
Re: CipherTrace Enters Race to Solve Crypto's FATF Compliance Headache
Well from the sounds of it exchanges are going to have to abide by the travel rule regardless.
That's not set in stone. Nothing the FATF does is binding. They just pressure individual governments to implement their standards -- it often doesn't actually happen. None of the FATF member countries have even passed complying legislation yet, let alone the rest of the world. Anything that exchanges do to comply at this point is completely voluntary, not required. And then, once laws are actually passed, enforcement is another question entirely.
Does what they propose somehow become a regulation or law overtime? What would an ideal timeline be like for something to be set into place?
NULS. Infrastructure, adoption (Chainbox allowing devs to spin up a blockchain in 10 minutes), new staking model and the partnership announcements that have been rolling out recently are impressive