Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 1,839 results by fikrett
Re: Will Litecoin finally outperform Bitcoin in percentage gains?
Litecoin often follows Bitcoin but with higher volatility. Can it deliver higher ROI this time? Or Litecoin is also a saturated coin because of already having very big market cap.
Hardly see that play out. Litecoin is among the oldest altcoin but if people were to choose a blockchain that doesn't have smart contract feature or any other gimmicks, they'd go to bitcoin because it's the new gold.Litecoin on the other hand most likely gonna stagnate, but it's just my opinion and can be wrong. Doge got the meme coin narrative going, ethereum got the smart contract with defis, etc locking TVL at the billions.
Meanwhile litecoin is just for remittance at best. So i can't really find the proper reasoning as to why it should climb in price.
Where there is gold, there is also silver, and I think LTC will show up one day to keep its spotlight, but as for now, it's not talked that much in the space, nor it is seen to spike up in price or gain relevance that much.
Time will tell.
The massive sell is expected because many airdrop participants are not investors; they participate to earn income. This is essentially the price they pay for free promotion of their projects, which is considered a form of compensation.
If the project is that good, it can withstand the sell pressure and can maintain its presence in the market. Airdrops cannot kill good projects; it’s the utility.
That's why some projects raised eligibility requirements. To prevent airdrop hunters from cashing out and causing a huge "dump" in market prices. Now you're required to spend a certain amount of money in "De-Fi" protocols to be able to participate in the airdrop program. Other projects expect you to follow them on social networks and invite other people to their platforms. If the project is that good, it can withstand the sell pressure and can maintain its presence in the market. Airdrops cannot kill good projects; it’s the utility.
Gone are the days where you could claim "free tokens" out of nothing. Back then, we could say airdrops "killed" the value of new projects. But things have changed as developers noticed airdrop hunters' schemes. I think this is good because it encourages utility above all else. Mainstream adoption will increase as people rush to meet eligibility requirements to receive "free money". The success of airdrops will depend on the regulators. As long as regulators don't mess this up, there should be nothing to worry about.
You have to realize, a good project is a good project and people would want to buy into that project and when people do buy, then sellers do not matter. A bad project is a bad one, and even if you sell just a thousand dollars worth, it may crash.
So these prevention mechanics never really help with anyone, it is not the way to recover and we should always try to find a way to recover and be better.
It helps the founders, more than anyone else, of course.
All the rest of the people can only settle for what comes next, the biggest dump or just a slow stagnation, or maybe a pump and then what was described previously.
Without mining rewards, would miners keep the network alive with just transaction fees, or would Bitcoin collapse?
theoretically yes if the demand for bitcoin remains and there’s a lot of transactions waiting then yes miners will still be profitable just from transaction fees alone and if miners are happy well then the security remains strongI think that interest will always be there for BTC (because it's obvious it's the one to get the most of it), and such a scenario is a speculation anyway if not going forward into the many decades ahead.
Bitcoin is not for the rich? If you said this 15 years ago when bitcoin was only worth a few million dollars and very cheap, rich people wouldn't care about it. But that is no longer true in today's era, and the proof is that the people who own the most bitcoins are the rich, not the poor.
Also, the price of bitcoin continues to increase higher and faster over time, which means that buying bitcoin is becoming more and more difficult for poor people because they don't have much money.
So, to be fair, bitcoin is for everyone, but it is easier for the rich to own and make big profits from bitcoin than the poor. Even the poor's chance of owning bitcoin is gradually closing as the price of this currency tends to increase higher every day.
It’s true that those who now hold massive amounts of Bitcoin are mainly large corporations, whales, and prominent businessmen.. I don't think a poor person can own a full coin or more. But that doesn’t mean Bitcoin investment is out of reach for the poor. Also, the price of bitcoin continues to increase higher and faster over time, which means that buying bitcoin is becoming more and more difficult for poor people because they don't have much money.
So, to be fair, bitcoin is for everyone, but it is easier for the rich to own and make big profits from bitcoin than the poor. Even the poor's chance of owning bitcoin is gradually closing as the price of this currency tends to increase higher every day.
Anyone can invest according to their financial ability, though naturally,, returns depend on the size of the capital: someone investing $100 won’t get the same profits as someone investing $1 million.
Although Bitcoin continues to rise, it remains a volatile asset, people with limited funds can take advantage of market dips and applying a DCA strategy. ًThey can obtain a portion of Bitcoin, depending on their capital. Over time, Bitcoin profits can change their lives for the better. The train hasn’t left yet, and when Bitcoin reaches $1M, we’ll probably wish we had invested more at $100K. With Bitcoin, nothing is impossible.
The most beautiful thing is that everybody can do it, big and small.
BTC will always be relevant, but the returns on HODLing it will be less and less because volatility becomes less of a factor too.
Re: Could Bitcoin survive if all hardware wallets suddenly stopped working?
If hardware wallets became unusable, would confidence in Bitcoin weaken, or would people adapt with new storage methods? Is this even a possibility ?
If this happen then provably that Bitcoin usage will get affected since we know it will be so hard for lots of people to access their funds stored in their wallets.
There are methods on how they can send their Bitcoin offline https://www.cryptopolitan.com/how-to-send-bitcoin-without-internet/ Maybe this feature will became so popular if it happens that those situation you have mentioned would really happen.
But I believe those situations you have mentioned will never gonna happen.
Agreed.
This type of event wouldn't affect - all - the wallets probably, only some that would be targeted.
Re: Could Bitcoin survive if all hardware wallets suddenly stopped working?
You would just put your seed somewhere else, imo, as others said already.
Depends on how many people or wallets would be affected, of course..If all of them - yeah, there would be a bit of panic, but it would die down probably.
Depends on how many people or wallets would be affected, of course..If all of them - yeah, there would be a bit of panic, but it would die down probably.
~Snip
This is familiar to me, perhaps because, compared to Saylor's strategy, it's a DCA strategy. He doesn't look at the price when making a purchase, and he also purchases Bitcoin periodically. These characteristics clearly indicate he's using a DCA strategy. Furthermore, I'm currently investing in Bitcoin and employ a DCA strategy in my Bitcoin investments. And it's proven that the DCA technique is very effective. Essentially, we don't need to worry or analyze when making a purchase. We're essentially buying Bitcoin at the average price. However, this strategy is only suitable for long-term investors. If used by medium- or short-term investors, I believe the results will be less than satisfactory. Saylor is also a long-term Bitcoin investor, so he's not afraid to use the DCA strategy. Because using this strategy in long-term Bitcoin investments is likely to yield excellent returns.I wouldn't trade BTC and go for short-mid term with it anyway, but you are right: HODLing is for those that understand why it can be done in the first place, and why there should be no signs of nerves piling up due to the market going up or down..
We can buy at peaks or lows, the result would be the same if we hodl right and don't fear the dips and such: everything will be good regardless 
The volatility of Bitcoin is neither a merit nor demerit because that is the very nature of every asset that is experiencing huge demand and supply. I don't even know why this is becoming a topic of discussion because it is an inherent property of Bitcoin. Every asset that is driven by the forces of demand and supply will always experience volatility. Take for instance gold and oil, they are both subjected to demand and supply hence they will experience volatility. This means that volatility is not limited to Bitcoin neither can it be used as advantage or disadvantage for Bitcoin.
But you can't deny that bitcoin's volatility is significantly greater than gold, oil, or any traditional asset. It can be said that no traditional asset is as volatile as bitcoin and that brings both advantages and disadvantages to bitcoin. Not everyone likes high volatility, roller coaster rides and that is one of the reasons why many investors are still hesitant and have not invested in bitcoin. Or as some have pointed out, with such high volatility, using bitcoin as a currency is very inconvenient and no one wants to use such a volatile currency.
It will change eventually to the times where BTC would be much more less volatile to be used such a currency, imo, it all comes to such a way of things, because demand for BTC rises, and so rises the power needed to turn its price somewhere.
If the government are strict about taxes, P2P won't enough to solve the problem because you still receive the money through banks. Exchange to cash is risky though, criminals can threaten by pointing their gun on our head.
You are right but your post add zero meaning to this discussion. He is not asking what unfriendly country is but asking if the tax and draconian approach of the government can lead to people using P2P that are not centralized. The thread is not about a debate of what that should be called unfriendly or friendly.P2P, even you doing that without KYC, could arise banks suspicion to investigate your incoming funds. The worst thing to happen is they freeze the account and ask the source of every incoming transactions. You have to prepare to answer that, even you answer it's a gift from friends, there's a gift tax, except you sent up to £3,000/annual.
That's why I said the best decision is exchange to cash, it's not recorded in banking ledger.
There would be a need for a trusted vendor, in that case, and to find such a person is no easy task..
Honestly these stuff are temporary and daily, it is not really something that we can agree on at the moment and we shouldn't bother with it at all. I think the best way to move forward would be just ignoring these small movements that are not for long term, and just keep focusing on how great it will be in the future.
We are in the bull run, and the rate doesn't matter to us, it can go down, up, or stay same and nothing matters to us. We should be focusing on how to get a greater profit on the long term and we can do a lot better result. I know that this isn't a big deal at the moment, but we can certainly get a better return when the time is right, so we shouldn't really worry about how to get the best return on the long run.
We are in the bull run, and the rate doesn't matter to us, it can go down, up, or stay same and nothing matters to us. We should be focusing on how to get a greater profit on the long term and we can do a lot better result. I know that this isn't a big deal at the moment, but we can certainly get a better return when the time is right, so we shouldn't really worry about how to get the best return on the long run.
All in all - we can just chill till we hear news about new ATH, before that, we shouldn't be worried at all, imo
One day banks will accept Bitcoin as medium of exchange and accept deposits from bitcoiners. As soon as the world powers accept it as medium of exchange.
This could happen one day when banks can no longer compete with Bitcoin because everyone uses it like they currently use fiat money. But as long as fiat money remains trusted by all governments around the world, it will continue to be used by everyone, even if everyone loves Bitcoin as much as they love money. Banks could take advantage of this opportunity to earn fees when people buy or exchange Bitcoin through their services. However, I still prefer to stick with certain exchanges if I only want to exchange Bitcoin for other assets like fiat money.I do think, eventually, BTC will just be the greatest alternative out there.
Fiat and BTC don't need to compete, because both have their pros and cons for everyone, big and small: but they need to have the same grounds regarding possibilities and people being interested in using them on all type of scales to move forward.
Re: US Strategic Reserve; is it right to actually use seized assets as reserves
Yes it's their right!
We support communities by transferring certain types of forfeited assets to state, local and nonprofit organizations. Through the Operation Goodwill program, forfeited real or personal property of marginal value can be transferred to state or local governments in support of drug abuse treatment, drug crime prevention and education, housing, job skills and other community-based public health and safety programs.
Yep, if we do it with these things, we can do it with BTC too.
Loopholes will be found anyways eventually
I think the number of channels dropping down is because of the public channels capacity is one thing, and the ones that are not announced, private, so to speak - is another.
Also, there may be a consolidation around bigger, better-managed hub nodes, causing many smaller channels to close, basically, imo.
Also, there may be a consolidation around bigger, better-managed hub nodes, causing many smaller channels to close, basically, imo.
Do we really need more rules? At this point it just feels like the government is slowly killing the little privacy we still have left. What they’re already implementing is more than enough.
The funny part is, we don’t even get real protection anyway. Exchanges can run scams while they’re active, take money from users, and nobody from the government steps in. They only start acting once the exchange is already bankrupt, hacked, or about to shut down. By then, it’s too late.
And even if they do get involved, it drags on for so long that you’ll end up thinking you shouldn’t have reported it at all.
The funny part is, we don’t even get real protection anyway. Exchanges can run scams while they’re active, take money from users, and nobody from the government steps in. They only start acting once the exchange is already bankrupt, hacked, or about to shut down. By then, it’s too late.
And even if they do get involved, it drags on for so long that you’ll end up thinking you shouldn’t have reported it at all.
I do think that as tech progresses, privacy is going to suffer more and more: it's inevitable, there is always something to snatch out of it (if possible).