Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 252 results by zeuner
Re: Could Bitcoin survive if all hardware wallets suddenly stopped working?
A monoculture is bad for resilience most of the time, which doesn't change for hardware. But would the affected fraction of the circulating coins really be that relevant?
Re: If Monero Can Suffer 50% Hashrate Risk, Why Can't Bitcoin?
And yet… withdrawals are still allowed?? That’s wild. Seems crazy strict on deposits but somehow you can still send your XMR out.
The withdrawers' own decision whether to risk it or not...
Team not doxxed: If there’s no face, it’s a risk.
Just imagining what the world would look like when people knew about this earlier, and realized they don't know Satoshi Nakamoto's face...
Could XRP (Ripple) Be the Next Bitcoin?
I am sure upon seeing the title, you leapt out of your seat and got ready to disprove me. Well that is also my reaction upon seeing the title of this article. I then read the entire article and it gave reasons why xrp can be the next bitcoin.
The article starts by introducing the two indicating their current value: Two of the most popular cryptocurrencies right now are Bitcoin and XRP (XRP 1.95%). As of this writing (July 28), Bitcoin's price of roughly $120,000 is hovering near all-time highs. Meanwhile, at only $3, XRP appears much more modest.
Looking at the value already, we can say that these two are miles away from each other. But then the article continues to dive into what makes xrp so unique to be compared to bitcoin.... Ripple offers a compelling alternative payments network for cross-border transactions. The Ripple network allows transactions to settle within seconds, and at a much lower cost compared to SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) network.
The article then compared the two's supply. Bitcoin has a limit of 21 million while xrp has 100 billion limit. It made me laugh how the article quite explicitly said this about xrp... the scarcity psychology seen with Bitcoin doesn't seem to be present.
I think that we can stop reading the article after this one sentence... Ripple holds a portion of the XRP supply, meaning the token itself is not fully decentralized like Bitcoin is.
I do not know if anyone ever thought that xrp would be the same as bitcoin or would be the next bitcoin but just by looking at the two, the differences are too noticeable. If you want to ever compare an altcoin (or god forbid a memecoin) to bitcoin, just write it out and notice how foolish you sound.
I am sure upon seeing the title, you leapt out of your seat and got ready to disprove me. Well that is also my reaction upon seeing the title of this article. I then read the entire article and it gave reasons why xrp can be the next bitcoin.
The article starts by introducing the two indicating their current value: Two of the most popular cryptocurrencies right now are Bitcoin and XRP (XRP 1.95%). As of this writing (July 28), Bitcoin's price of roughly $120,000 is hovering near all-time highs. Meanwhile, at only $3, XRP appears much more modest.
Looking at the value already, we can say that these two are miles away from each other. But then the article continues to dive into what makes xrp so unique to be compared to bitcoin.... Ripple offers a compelling alternative payments network for cross-border transactions. The Ripple network allows transactions to settle within seconds, and at a much lower cost compared to SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) network.
The article then compared the two's supply. Bitcoin has a limit of 21 million while xrp has 100 billion limit. It made me laugh how the article quite explicitly said this about xrp... the scarcity psychology seen with Bitcoin doesn't seem to be present.
I think that we can stop reading the article after this one sentence... Ripple holds a portion of the XRP supply, meaning the token itself is not fully decentralized like Bitcoin is.
I do not know if anyone ever thought that xrp would be the same as bitcoin or would be the next bitcoin but just by looking at the two, the differences are too noticeable. If you want to ever compare an altcoin (or god forbid a memecoin) to bitcoin, just write it out and notice how foolish you sound.
In the article, I miss some information about have XRP and BTC differ in terms of resilience.
Hello fellow crypto explorers,
I recently launched a crypto blog where I share in-depth research on altcoins trading under $1, some hidden gems, microcaps, and real-use projects.
Would love to hear your thoughts!
I’ll be sharing more findings as I go. Thanks for the warm welcome!
Regards,
AltcoinsNest.com
I recently launched a crypto blog where I share in-depth research on altcoins trading under $1, some hidden gems, microcaps, and real-use projects.
Would love to hear your thoughts!
I’ll be sharing more findings as I go. Thanks for the warm welcome!
Regards,
AltcoinsNest.com
As long as they are fungible, I don't think it makes a difference for how much one unit is being traded. Maybe compare using other metrics, like market capitalization?
I don't really knows what happens to the NFT market but I am just curious to the stunt in growth of NFT and what really happens.
The hype has just ceased. There wasn't any real product behind NFTs, nothing useful at all, so eventually it was a matter of time until they completely died. It's not like main cryptocurrencies which face cycles of highs and lows. Take Bitcoin, for an example, sometimes we see the price crashing, but after a while, it starts pumping again, because investors see it as a valuable asset, which is useful on long run to be held.On the other hand, the same can't be said regards NFTs. Developers promised to sell a worthy asset, which was unique and would work like Bitcoin along the time. But reality shows the opposite. NFTs worked like a ponzi, where early investors bought cheap, but late investors could never profit from this, since initial investors dumped their NFTs as soon as profit was possible to be made, remaining the late investors with priceless tokens on their wallets.
Then again, why couldn't it work in the opposite way, with fungible tokens (like BTC) being dumped, and NFTs again being seen as valuable assets? Is it really just the fungibility that makes investors pick up fungible tokens again, or is there more behind it?
Promising technology that somehow got on the wrong track. Much of the early bird advantage got lost through centralization.
That's exactly what happened. Centralized holding, centralized governance and now it is a disaster. They let the L2 field spawn because everyone is making money on new private sales at the loss of investors. Now they are stuck. If they scale too much L1 Ethereum, then most L2s will be useless and die off. Still, much has been built around the technology, which would be a pain to port. Just waiting whether someone will fork it and bring back PoW or something different for the sake of better decentralization, ultimately resilience.
Apart from the value on exchanges, be sure to also check the activity on the corresponding blockchain while the coin was "dead". With near-zero activity on the consensus mechanism, attacks that would be unrealistic under normal conditions may become feasible.
"Price stability" exists only compared to a chosen base currency, and requires a lot of steering effort. Bitcoin was designed not to have any steering mechanisms (e.g. to deliberately adapt currency supply) that would be required to do so.
Whilst PoC seems to nicely complement PoW, proving capacity usually creates insane wear on the HDDs and SSDs used. Thus, a lot of waste is generated, and there is no real advantage over PoW.
Maybe this could change when using workloads that are actually useful as a side effect, e.g. for archiving, in order to prove capacity. Until then, I don't see enough advantage in putting resources into PoC schemes.
Maybe this could change when using workloads that are actually useful as a side effect, e.g. for archiving, in order to prove capacity. Until then, I don't see enough advantage in putting resources into PoC schemes.
Who knows. The thing is that almost no one even tried to explore possible benefits. The vast majority of art-related NFT efforts assumed that throwing NFT on some random piece of of art will magically create something like ownership, fully ignoring that, no matter whether you're talking about fungible or non-fungible, a blockchain won't solve your counterparty risks.
Almost all of NFT which value purely derived from the value of the "art" are already going to zero.
Yes, there are interesting mechanisms being explored. Just saying most art-related NFTs seem to forget that. To be interesting, NFT-based art should not only use the blockchain as a vehicle to try to capitalize art from other media, but should embrace the medium (blockchain / NFT) itself (see Reichert, 2021 for a more in-depth exploration of that matter).
On a more general note, many NFT-related efforts are based on PoS blockchains, posing an inherent centralization risk. In the worst case, there is no huge benefit compared to openly centralized tokens.
Feel sorry for those who had been burned up by their crypto investment on NFT's on which some people been saying or here comes a time that we do even speculate that it is part of some money laundering thing on which its not that also an impossible thing or lets say its probable but since it hadnt been that proven out then it do remains speculative. In regarding about into other trend out there or lets say on the present then it wont be that totally be that different and this is why as an investor then you should be that careful on what you are that dealing into and always consider about risks management and always invest into the amount on which you can afford to lose so that if ever the market becomes shit then you wont be ending up on being totally blown up with the money that you had invested.
Most coverage on NFTs around pictures could be boiled down to: Someone paid $someamount for this, but we can't explain why. I don't feel too sorry about people taking such thin statements as an incentive to pour money therein. Before buying, understand what you buy. I do feel sorry about all the wasted chances to fill all the vapor with some substance.
Who knows. The thing is that almost no one even tried to explore possible benefits. The vast majority of art-related NFT efforts assumed that throwing NFT on some random piece of of art will magically create something like ownership, fully ignoring that, no matter whether you're talking about fungible or non-fungible, a blockchain won't solve your counterparty risks.
Some are already exploring the benefits though, through ownership and airdrop identification, most of the NFT that still has value also has underlying use, to access certain community and to be eligible into a project.Almost all of NFT which value purely derived from the value of the "art" are already going to zero.
Yes, there are interesting mechanisms being explored. Just saying most art-related NFTs seem to forget that. To be interesting, NFT-based art should not only use the blockchain as a vehicle to try to capitalize art from other media, but should embrace the medium (blockchain / NFT) itself (see Reichert, 2021 for a more in-depth exploration of that matter).
On a more general note, many NFT-related efforts are based on PoS blockchains, posing an inherent centralization risk. In the worst case, there is no huge benefit compared to openly centralized tokens.
The main problem of that failure is that people have used NFTs for the wrong purposes. The technology behind NFTs has many potential applications, and digital art is not the intended avenue and it does not even bring any benefits to that.
Who knows. The thing is that almost no one even tried to explore possible benefits. The vast majority of art-related NFT efforts assumed that throwing NFT on some random piece of of art will magically create something like ownership, fully ignoring that, no matter whether you're talking about fungible or non-fungible, a blockchain won't solve your counterparty risks.
Re: Bitcoin Testnet Has Value. Testnet Should Be Considered An Altcoin.
It's kinda too fucking bad tbh... people are free to do what they want with this type of cryptocurrency by design. You know... permissionless and boardless...
Sure, but at the point where people assign value to tokens from a testnet, they create the need for another testnet facilitating innovation that relates to technical aspects and not token scarcity. At this point, the previous testnet is just another, maximally boring altcoin. So, people might apply their freedom to something more meaningful. But yes, no one is in the position to forbid others to do something that doesn't make sense...
Many mechanics people are used to are not designed for deflationary currencies, most importantly fixed income. So, there might be much that would have to be re-invented in some way.
Re: Bitcoin Testnet Has Value. Testnet Should Be Considered An Altcoin.
In order to be most useful for testing, a testnet should copy the technical characteristics of the tested blockchain as much as possible, including the PoW scheme.
So, attaching a value to testnet tokens would mean that two blockchains would compete over the same hashing resources, but without any innovation that could possibly stem from that competition.
I don't see how this could do anything but harm these blockchains.
So, attaching a value to testnet tokens would mean that two blockchains would compete over the same hashing resources, but without any innovation that could possibly stem from that competition.
I don't see how this could do anything but harm these blockchains.
That's because Vitalik Buterin is close to a woman, it is rumored that a man if he is close to a woman or unmarried he will not focus on what they should do for the development of their business, and this happened to the genius maybe, we often see memes about Vitalik on X about why Ethereum is experiencing a bad leadership crisis and their price development is down, also with several L2 projects that are also carried away, now developers are building more on the Solana network than ethereum or on other networks as a better means in terms of network facilities for their projects.
No matter what's the cause for the lack of leadership, but it proves that the last few years' steps towards centralization did not do the user base any good. If there is any interest left in keeping the technology alive, it's likely important to decentralize quickly. Restoring PoW would be a first step.
Yes the decision was indeed not a good choice and the industry became the main backfire for the growth of developers and users of the Ethereum teaching teaching, and I thought it was from the results of the leader who made the wrong decision, because basically the project leader was deciding what should be curved for the future of a project and it would have good and bad impacts on the project itself, it is very important to have a leader who can bring great opportunities in the development and progress of Ethereum for the long run.
Maybe so, but if leadership fails for too long, stakeholders might have to make a decision on whether to fork and fix the platform, or move to another one.