Search content
Sort by
Showing 15 of 15 results by coffeeastronaut
all encryption is at risk, including bitcoin. If u are magnifying the time for a hundred years. BTC can also be a scam. But we only invest for a period of time, such as three or two years. I believe mainstream coins are safe.
what risks to encryption is there? quantum computers?
-watch out for fake teams no matter how good and tempting the website design looks
-secondly all those rating sites are not trustworthy ,they get paid to rate any project as 'high' ,I stay away from them
-don't invest in projects that delivers something that other projects have already offered
-secondly all those rating sites are not trustworthy ,they get paid to rate any project as 'high' ,I stay away from them
-don't invest in projects that delivers something that other projects have already offered
Very good points. And like what other people already mentioned in the thread; that ico listing and rating sites are not to be trusted. One has to do due diligence of the team and project themselves!
No, they really are not serious. Neither the governments or SpaceX.
For example there is a predicted large asteroid impact in 2104 that can be prevented. But the application of kinetic energy to this threat in 2020 can be done with three orders of magnitude less energy than later in the century.
Is the 2020 opportunity going to be used? Nope.
For example there is a predicted large asteroid impact in 2104 that can be prevented. But the application of kinetic energy to this threat in 2020 can be done with three orders of magnitude less energy than later in the century.
Is the 2020 opportunity going to be used? Nope.
What is the name for this asteroid? Any relevant links?
I was wondering the same.
Apophos, one of numerous extremely dangerous rocks.
https://cneos.jpl.nasa.gov/sentry/details.html#?des=99942
https://cneos.jpl.nasa.gov
General theory of impact speed calculation.
http://www2.mae.ufl.edu/~uhk/ASTEROID.pdf
But these rocks establish over millions of years, a resonance with the orbit of a planet. For example, one may precisely loop then sun seven times, while the Earth loops six times. This happens over and over.
From observations, we calculate the rock's elliptical path. Three observations is the minimum, and the more there are, the more precise the calculation becomes. First it is established that its path in the ecliptic crosses that of Earth (2D). Then it is only a matter of whether it passes in front of the Earth, or behind the Earth, or strikes the Earth.
Very interesting. Thanks for sharing this information. Found myself browsing about asteroids for quite some time on that CNEOS link
I am sure that SpaceX rocket tech would be useful for future studies of asteroids.
Re: Regulations only for BTC to increase in FIAT value?
One reason I see is because bitcoin is already being used by people as a means to get more of their local issued currency by means of speculation and trading. If we kept the idea of 1 BTC = 1 BTC and people haven't discovered its speculative properties, we may have flourished as a strict P2P currency system without government intervention, however since people are using bitcoin to get fiat and vice-versa, that's when governments feel the need to step in. With this, regulations are somewhat painful compromise we as a community have agreed to ever since people exchanged bitcoins to fiat, and that is back in 2010.
In my opinion, BTC will never replace FIAT in that way. I dont think that was the point either. The point is to coexist and be an alternative I guess (?). So no compromise really made, right?
Re: Regulations only for BTC to increase in FIAT value?
Hi all!
People in this forum and in many other discussions are fast to talk about the 'need for regulations'.
Most of the times it is in connection to mass adoption and for price speculation ideas.
Is regulations really only for Bitcoin to increase in price? What about the whole idea about a P2P currency without governments and banks being involved as a middle man .... Regulations issued by authorities, is that not only for the old system to take control of this emerging p2p currency market? I dont know but why should Bitcoin be regulated by governments and other authorities according to you?
People in this forum and in many other discussions are fast to talk about the 'need for regulations'.
Most of the times it is in connection to mass adoption and for price speculation ideas.
Is regulations really only for Bitcoin to increase in price? What about the whole idea about a P2P currency without governments and banks being involved as a middle man .... Regulations issued by authorities, is that not only for the old system to take control of this emerging p2p currency market? I dont know but why should Bitcoin be regulated by governments and other authorities according to you?
There is a difference between regulation and over regulation. I will only talk about regulation here because I truly believe, only regulation can help us achieve the true use of bitcoin, a p2p currency!
A majority of the merchants today don't accept bitcoin in their stores just because of its confusing legal status in many countries. Some also believe that bitcoin is banned worldwide because terrorists use it. There are lot of misconceptions floating around bitcoin just because there is no regulation and education available for it.
I strongly believe, bitcoin needs to be used as a currency sustem in order to grow holistically. The major roadblock is the absence of regulation. We can't buy our daily goods using bitcoin because no stores in my country accepts it. If my government decides to regulate it, buying daily goods using bitcoin will become a reality, which will increase the use of bitcoin as well as the demand!
Government regulation is solely needed for bitcoin's own good!
In general I am against "regulations", but not regulations per se, but more against the narrative that regulations will increase the price of bitcoin which is in line iwth the whole digital gold idea which I dont really see being the true point of bitcoin. The idea waS for it to be a p2p currency, not a p2p digital gold! Just my opinion here, obviously there are good points made about the digital gold narrative too. Anyhow ...
I bolded the most interesting point you made there. I am willing to agree to that statement. I think that the key note is regulation and over regulation. What many fail to realise, not saying you, but authorities, is that the ledger traces all transactions and BTC is not anonymous and in a way a not the most clever approach to AML questions. However, privacy coins COULD be but it kind of falls under the same roof of physical cash, to some extent.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Re: Regulations only for BTC to increase in FIAT value?
Most money would not move in to an area that's either free of regulation or carries uncertainty. That's the way of the world. It could carry on doing what it's doing just fine without that money.
Most regulation relates to when BTC interacts with regular currencies. You can use it entirely free of regulation, no proper wallet or transaction can be regulated, but until the scene develops further and becomes more of a closed loop you're likely to bump up against regulated services.
Most regulation relates to when BTC interacts with regular currencies. You can use it entirely free of regulation, no proper wallet or transaction can be regulated, but until the scene develops further and becomes more of a closed loop you're likely to bump up against regulated services.
So with that said, you mean that regulations mostly is about AML questions?
Re: Regulations only for BTC to increase in FIAT value?
Bitcoin will be regulated over time, there wouldn't be a uniform implementation of the rules since every country might have different approach on crypto.
My analysis tells me that the global effect would be positive, people who are potential to adopt crypto will start using it with confidence, and also investors in different part of the world would be confident in investing knowing they have government to protect them.
I will completely change from negative to positive, the system is decentralized and we don't need the government for it to function, but if we are talking about real adoption, we need the government to grow, we just have to choose, we allow to be regulated or they will eliminate bitcoin completely.
My analysis tells me that the global effect would be positive, people who are potential to adopt crypto will start using it with confidence, and also investors in different part of the world would be confident in investing knowing they have government to protect them.
I will completely change from negative to positive, the system is decentralized and we don't need the government for it to function, but if we are talking about real adoption, we need the government to grow, we just have to choose, we allow to be regulated or they will eliminate bitcoin completely.
I guess that last part is the key question. Can they even eliminate bitcoin completely? Would not the effect of such measures be the same as trying to remove the pirate bay?
Hi all!
People in this forum and in many other discussions are fast to talk about the 'need for regulations'.
Most of the times it is in connection to mass adoption and for price speculation ideas.
Is regulations really only for Bitcoin to increase in price? What about the whole idea about a P2P currency without governments and banks being involved as a middle man .... Regulations issued by authorities, is that not only for the old system to take control of this emerging p2p currency market? I dont know but why should Bitcoin be regulated by governments and other authorities according to you?
People in this forum and in many other discussions are fast to talk about the 'need for regulations'.
Most of the times it is in connection to mass adoption and for price speculation ideas.
Is regulations really only for Bitcoin to increase in price? What about the whole idea about a P2P currency without governments and banks being involved as a middle man .... Regulations issued by authorities, is that not only for the old system to take control of this emerging p2p currency market? I dont know but why should Bitcoin be regulated by governments and other authorities according to you?
There will be advantages and disadvantages of course. First hand, with regulations, danger of using bitcoin in the black market will be mitigated, danger of money laundering through the use of bitcoin will also be avoided, trust of people to the matter will be increased as will as security but for others, too much of these and that are very unlikable. It will be a hassle for them to abide by those regulations so those who don't want it will not go into it.
I dont think regulations really is a AML issue, I think it is more to control a new monetary market from a government perspective, which is understandable of course, no matter ones opinion
I agree, though money laundering might be one of the many reasons, but It wasnt the primary one.
Cryptocurrency like Bitcoin is a threat to the current banking system, and It is ironic to think that the banks has more laundered money than the whole cryptocurrency market cap.
I dont believe that banks has laundered a money . how come they can laundered if they are already regulated ? Cryptos are the ones that are prone to money laundering , that is why kyc is invented to protect us . bitcoin regulation really is beneficial to the user and to the owner of the exchange/wallet . kyc or regulation also have other useful feature such as filtering the abusers .
Of course cryptocurrency is very prone to money laundering, I didnt mentioned it wasnt. Even the banks as you said were regulated, yet there are still undeclared transactions of large amount of money. You know why? Because criminals are making it look like its just a normal transactions without being detected.
I dont blame you if you dont believe in money laundering with the banks, because we all have our own opinion and views. And yes KYC verification is benificial to everyone in cryptospace, of course if you want to propose a regulation or law it would always be beneficial to everyone on the first look. What we want to point out here is the MAIN idea behind the purpose of regulating Bitcoin.
tbh, I think that guy just made this post to gain activity and points for his BTCT account
You are right though, the MAIN idea behind the purpose of regulating Bitcoin is in my opinion; Only old system trying to control the market like they do with everything else. Ppl in crypto community who advocate regulations mostly wnats so because they think that this will increase price of Bitcoin, which is totally opposite of what Bitcoin was created for. Bitcoin was created as a P2P currency for the people and not for banks or authorities to regulate and control it
There will be advantages and disadvantages of course. First hand, with regulations, danger of using bitcoin in the black market will be mitigated, danger of money laundering through the use of bitcoin will also be avoided, trust of people to the matter will be increased as will as security but for others, too much of these and that are very unlikable. It will be a hassle for them to abide by those regulations so those who don't want it will not go into it.
I dont think regulations really is a AML issue, I think it is more to control a new monetary market from a government perspective, which is understandable of course, no matter ones opinion
I agree, though money laundering might be one of the many reasons, but It wasnt the primary one.
Cryptocurrency like Bitcoin is a threat to the current banking system, and It is ironic to think that the banks has more laundered money than the whole cryptocurrency market cap.
I dont believe that banks has laundered a money . how come they can laundered if they are already regulated ? Cryptos are the ones that are prone to money laundering , that is why kyc is invented to protect us . bitcoin regulation really is beneficial to the user and to the owner of the exchange/wallet . kyc or regulation also have other useful feature such as filtering the abusers .
Banks not laundered money? What world do you live in?
https://euobserver.com/justice/144524
https://euobserver.com/justice/143456
In Q3 2018 market is still a blood bath. A lot of people that involved in crypto losing theirs hopes on a quick moon. ICO market is down. But difficulty of mining is growing up. We need more powerful processors, GPU and so on. Mining was created to give ordinary people get some free coins. Another hand big companies joint into monster to dig more digital gold. Simple person is out of this business. To support a node of ethereum you need more space every month and you get no reward. Do you think its fair enough or we need some new architecture to give mining a new life?
I think mining companies knew that this will gonna happen, it depends when they have started their mining. I think if they have reached the double value of their ROI, they will survive. As of now, the mining industry is already on its darkest moment but they have to hang on. What of the rising of BTC will come?Simple person, the regular crypto dude is out of the mining business so to say. Mining is mainly done and controlled by huge companies for sure, except some minor shitcoins.
Now it is the big buck that controls the mining market. Both tech costs but it is also is not possible for the regular dude to get [local] government sponsored discounts for cheaper energy costs. The mining companies making huge dough, they just making their operations more cost effective and continuing with old market maker tricks.
....Do you think its fair enough or we need some new architecture to give mining a new life?
New architecture for sure. PoS is not the best solution in my opinion though, obvious flaws in that approach
No, they really are not serious. Neither the governments or SpaceX.
For example there is a predicted large asteroid impact in 2104 that can be prevented. But the application of kinetic energy to this threat in 2020 can be done with three orders of magnitude less energy than later in the century.
Is the 2020 opportunity going to be used? Nope.
For example there is a predicted large asteroid impact in 2104 that can be prevented. But the application of kinetic energy to this threat in 2020 can be done with three orders of magnitude less energy than later in the century.
Is the 2020 opportunity going to be used? Nope.
What is the name for this asteroid? Any relevant links?
I was wondering the same.
there is nothing cheaper than PoW, period. PoS is more expensive in game theoretical contexts.
Cheaper in terms of electricity bills or what do you mean? Care to elaborate on this statement?