Search content
Sort by
Showing 15 of 15 results by eSurge
Re: Do you use cryptocurrencies in your daily life? Are they useful?
Personally, I try to use BTC on every services I need in case it supports paying with cryptocurrencies. A nice example involves Internet related services, like purchasing domain names and hosting services.
Unfortunately, big purchases are still really hard to pay for in crypto, even today. I really hope that the adoption among merchants will continue to grow and reach some point at which you can spend crypto on almost everything.
I believe it could eventually happen, as merchants themselves are interested in receiving more for sold goods and avoid high fees, like PayPal's.
Unfortunately, big purchases are still really hard to pay for in crypto, even today. I really hope that the adoption among merchants will continue to grow and reach some point at which you can spend crypto on almost everything.
I believe it could eventually happen, as merchants themselves are interested in receiving more for sold goods and avoid high fees, like PayPal's.
It's completely normal state of the market, which may indicate that we accumulate resources prior to any future price surges.
I remember 2014-2015 quite well, all these BTC price drops from 1250 to 220 (may have forgotten exact figures, but you got the general idea).
Still, even back then there were lots of fear-mongers crying and spreading panic across - still life went on, market continued to attract new players, finally we have observed the unprecedented price levels of all major cryptos.
To my mind, right now we are observing the inevitable market rollback after reaching top price levels, followed by the so called "flat" - just a normal thing, we already passed this 3 years ago.
All in all, I think we should focus on helping the market evolve, avoid panic and FUD, initiate new developments around Bitcoin & other cryptos - sooner or later, we will get back to high and even higher prices.
I remember 2014-2015 quite well, all these BTC price drops from 1250 to 220 (may have forgotten exact figures, but you got the general idea).
Still, even back then there were lots of fear-mongers crying and spreading panic across - still life went on, market continued to attract new players, finally we have observed the unprecedented price levels of all major cryptos.
To my mind, right now we are observing the inevitable market rollback after reaching top price levels, followed by the so called "flat" - just a normal thing, we already passed this 3 years ago.
All in all, I think we should focus on helping the market evolve, avoid panic and FUD, initiate new developments around Bitcoin & other cryptos - sooner or later, we will get back to high and even higher prices.
Let's take a a look in the past - almost 10 years of crypto industry, being born & developed with great influence all around the world, have just passed.
As you may see, crypto related apps (wallets, exchanges, dexs, LN) continue to become more and more user-friendly and more widely accepted.
Though, there is still a major hurdle: unless your grandma cannot understand how to pay in Bitcoin, we are not ready for the mass adoption. However, lots of efforts are being put into making it as simple as most internet banking applications.
Aside from user-friendliness required for the day-to-day life, we have the "subvert-the-paradigm" principle of being responsible for storing & securing your own funds, which should make a shift in the consciousness of society.
And a few more hurdles to address: regulatory uncertainty, merchants' adoption.
Once we address all of these things, I guess most downsides of crypto *as we know it today*, may be successfully mitigated.
As you may see, crypto related apps (wallets, exchanges, dexs, LN) continue to become more and more user-friendly and more widely accepted.
Though, there is still a major hurdle: unless your grandma cannot understand how to pay in Bitcoin, we are not ready for the mass adoption. However, lots of efforts are being put into making it as simple as most internet banking applications.
Aside from user-friendliness required for the day-to-day life, we have the "subvert-the-paradigm" principle of being responsible for storing & securing your own funds, which should make a shift in the consciousness of society.
And a few more hurdles to address: regulatory uncertainty, merchants' adoption.
Once we address all of these things, I guess most downsides of crypto *as we know it today*, may be successfully mitigated.
Most of them simply prefer to ignore this topic as a rule of thumb.
Which is actually quite strange, considering the way crypto has come until now.
Luckily, there are just a few acquaintances still thinking that crypto is some sort of MLM / Ponzi.
10 years of crypto expansion were not in vain
Which is actually quite strange, considering the way crypto has come until now.
Luckily, there are just a few acquaintances still thinking that crypto is some sort of MLM / Ponzi.
10 years of crypto expansion were not in vain
Whales are very much real and they usually controls huge amount of BTC (as we are talking BTC investment.)
Totally agree with you, however it's still questionable, to what extent can they manipulate the market, as doing daytrading with such amounts is an extremely risky business for the whales themselves.
The most significant disadvantage of Crypto is that it is easy to be used by criminals to commit illegal transactions and this is also a big reason for the government to ban it. Also, the issuance of Tokens is too easy to create fake projects aimed at appropriating investment funds of investors.
It has become an unsolved problem until now but Bitcoin is a freedom so everyone can commit crimes with Bitcoin transaction tools.
Not as unsolved as it seems. For instance, US intelligence agencies nowadays manage to track down many fraudsters committing crimes using Bitcoin & Ethereum. AFAIK it's still really hard for anyone to track anonymous systems such as Monero & ZCash.
Considering Bitcoin, many blockchain analysis tools already exist, e.g. Chainalysis, Coinfirm and others. There are far more ways to track down Bitcoin transactions as it seems at the first glance.
As a number of mainnet LN nodes in Bitcoin continues to increase, I anticipate that more and more people start using Lightning, which would ultimately lead not only to scalability in terms of transaction throughput, but also drop on-chain fees to even lower bounds, following the transactions shift to the Lightning Network.
One of the remaining important things to do is to make LN more accessible and user-friendly for the general public. Initiatives like the Spark Wallet are great examples of heading that way.
One of the remaining important things to do is to make LN more accessible and user-friendly for the general public. Initiatives like the Spark Wallet are great examples of heading that way.
Let's not forget about the Drivechain - it's adoption may push Bitcoin's dominance to ultimate levels.
Which is due to the fact that once activated, the Drivechain's softfork makes use of good old bitcoins on any supported chain.
Which is due to the fact that once activated, the Drivechain's softfork makes use of good old bitcoins on any supported chain.
It's really a great news that such giants like Citi pioneers facilitating such purchases and holdings withing their bank.
However keep in mind that trusting banksters to hold your crypto for you is exactly the opposite to what bitcoin was meant to achieve.
However keep in mind that trusting banksters to hold your crypto for you is exactly the opposite to what bitcoin was meant to achieve.
Definitely it's not just a question about whether it's good or not. As in all aspects of our life, the world is not black & white.
Crypto regulation is going to be there unless we have no borders between countries and governments ruling these countries. The main question is, where exactly the regulation may lead us to? As always, the answer is: it depends.
Crypto regulation is going to be there unless we have no borders between countries and governments ruling these countries. The main question is, where exactly the regulation may lead us to? As always, the answer is: it depends.
Too true! Many impoverish people in the community are actually the most hard working people in that communit. All they lack is the opportunity to earn more that what they have. Maybe it is because of lack of education or seed money but the fact of the matter is they don't need hand outs, they need opportunities.
Well, life generally is not about hard work, and it is all about being smart. Absolutely, for a country that is ridden with poverty, it is usual to always notice there is always a problem from the leadership, the level of corruption in such country and the unavailability of things that are necessary for the citizens to thrive and succeed and in such kind of settlement, it is always hard to say eradicating poverty would be easy unless a lot of changes are made most especially with such leadership.Poverty is present everywhere. You can meet people living under the bridge even in New-York, and they are not necessarily unlucky with their whole lives. Corruption is also omnipresent, and it looks like you can't eradicate poverty (or alleviate it substantially) with the help of those who facilitated it in the first place ("the leadership"). The implication is that we should first eradicate corruption, but this is even less possible than eradicating poverty, even though it is something less vague and more concrete.
IIRC that's the exact course of action that Singapore took, which eventually led this country to become ranked with the 3rd highest GDP per capita.
Banks are going to stay but will eventually change significantly, guess to a somewhat extreme extent, totally unpredictable for now.
Once people start putting more power in crypto (i.e. laws of math) & each others and less in traditional mechanisms of trust between financial counterparties, a paradigm shift in society's mind would become inevitable.
Once people start putting more power in crypto (i.e. laws of math) & each others and less in traditional mechanisms of trust between financial counterparties, a paradigm shift in society's mind would become inevitable.
Guys, TL;DR
Just used a selective reading approach to find out about Changelly's selective scamming approach
5 cents from my own exp: been using Changelly for a while, no serious issues with them. It's really hard to say whether they are scamming selectively or not, but their service is quite popular and I've never seen anything like this before.
Anyway, it does not sound reasonable for me to claim publicly that these guys running Changelly are all crooks & thieves.
As one guy just mentioned above, you can ask your law student, it's not the way to investigate and/or resolve an issue. Generally, making an outrageous scam incident public makes great results, but it shouldn't boil down to yelling "scammers" out loud about all of their subsidiaries (the latter is quite obvious to me).
Just used a selective reading approach to find out about Changelly's selective scamming approach
5 cents from my own exp: been using Changelly for a while, no serious issues with them. It's really hard to say whether they are scamming selectively or not, but their service is quite popular and I've never seen anything like this before.
Anyway, it does not sound reasonable for me to claim publicly that these guys running Changelly are all crooks & thieves.
As one guy just mentioned above, you can ask your law student, it's not the way to investigate and/or resolve an issue. Generally, making an outrageous scam incident public makes great results, but it shouldn't boil down to yelling "scammers" out loud about all of their subsidiaries (the latter is quite obvious to me).
More people does not mean more volatility. It's exactly the opposite. More people mean better distribution and this counteracts volatility.
If you have 100 units of something and 20 belongs to 1 person, 30 to another person and the rest is distributed among 5 other people. If each of these smaller holders sells the price will already move by a lot (10%) and if one of the big holders sell you could have a 30% swing. But what if each person got 1. 1 person selling would only mean a 1% move.
If you have 100 units of something and 20 belongs to 1 person, 30 to another person and the rest is distributed among 5 other people. If each of these smaller holders sells the price will already move by a lot (10%) and if one of the big holders sell you could have a 30% swing. But what if each person got 1. 1 person selling would only mean a 1% move.
That's the exact reason why we should say contrariwise, "More people, Less volatility".
Being more common & widely distributed would generally mean less centralization which affects price fluctuations.
Just a basic law of economics.
Only professional programmers would consider his code 'bad' or 'sloppy'. But professional programmers have a tendency to over-complicate everything behind twenty layers of abstraction and object-orientated garbage, so they see anything that doesn't do the same as bad code.
Object/garbage oriented programming is not considered a professional technique. Ironically the more obsessed a programmer is with OOP, less he knows about it. It is primarily about encapsulation (a genius idea) rather than inheritance, the most naive modelling technique ever. Such programmers have the tendency you mentioned here and always fall into useless abstractions, it is done in the name of re-usability and they do it like a teenager who is excessively addicted to masterbation.
Thanks god, bitcoin code is not poisoned by such garbages and navigating through it you are not lost in abstract ridiculous classes. Very limited and smart use of inheritance and more emphasis on encapsulation. I think it is due to Satoshi's neat approach to the first implementation, his legacy.
Guess it's also worth to mention loose coupling here, as an integral principle of encapsulation. Although, an initial bitcoin's source code release seems to look way tightly coupled from this standpoint.
As Satoshi is believed to be Mr. Szabo IRL, nothing here *in terms of coding style* seem to be contradicting.