Bitcoin....who's gotten into it?

[stalefish3169]

The lamest of all is bitcoiner mods deleting posts of others.

I don't agree with mods deleting post either unless they are clearly over the line with things like doxxing, physical threats, etc.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[MultiVerse]

Re security, while there's no evidence the feds cracked SHA-256 but that doesn't mean bitcoin is entirely secure. Bitcoin is not “anonymous”, it's “pseudonymous,” and your wallet is threatened by phishing, spoofing, malware, exchange exploits, or stolen keys just like any other password protected digital entity.

[shera]

I got filled at 32335 during the night. Next buy order is at 31335. Very close now. My last sells were 13 days ago north of 40k. Fingers crossed for a return to volatility.

[stalefish3169]

Re security, while there's no evidence the feds cracked SHA-256 but that doesn't mean bitcoin is entirely secure. Bitcoin is not “anonymous”, it's “pseudonymous,” and your wallet is threatened by phishing, spoofing, malware, exchange exploits, or stolen keys just like any other password protected digital entity.

Most people that have done a minimal amount of research know that BTC is not anonymous. It's a public ledger.

BTC is secure. Poor user op-sec should not be confused with the protocol itself.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[stalefish3169]

I got filled at 32335 during the night. Next buy order is at 31335. Very close now. My last sells were 13 days ago north of 40k. Fingers crossed for a return to volatility.

Good luck! I'm just chilling for now.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[4matic]

I got filled at 32335 during the night. Next buy order is at 31335. Very close now. My last sells were 13 days ago north of 40k. Fingers crossed for a return to volatility.

Chart shows last time BTC was above $40k was May 18

[MultiVerse]

Most people that have done a minimal amount of research know that BTC is not anonymous. It's a public ledger.

BTC is secure. Poor user op-sec should not be confused with the protocol itself.

Are you just restating posts in your own words? Because nobody said the protocol is insecure but that doesn't mean it's immune to other types of hacks. The main thing is, unlike with stolen credit card info for example, there's not much recourse when that happens. Some custodial accounts are insured but then you give up even pseudo-anonymity which begs the question how is crypto different from any other type of banking in that scenario?

[old goat]

When someone feels the need to post incessantly defending something, it suggests there might be a problem with it. Maybe they're trying to convince themselves.

[CirqueScaler]

Cryptocurrency research firms such as Chainalysis, which is a service provider to the FBI, attempt to link bitcoin addresses with entity biographical information by trawling the web (different from what benny profane does) and tracking inflows and outflows from the addresses.

As you folks know, all bitcoin transactions are public. So when the ransom was paid in btc, the recipients owned their coins, but they were very easily surveillable. My guess is that the FBI/Chainalysis set up an alert for the address and could instantly see (or 10minute-ly see) when the coins were moved to a bitcoin address that works closely with the United States such as, say, Coinbase. Once the coins were moved, the DOJ seized them.

You could have set up your own alert and followed along on Google! Below, a user searches for bitcoin being sent/received by Russian GRU agents as revealed in the Mueller Report:



Personally, I don't think this news story fairly benefits crypto skeptics or evangelists. Bitcoin worked as described, so no views should be changed. Realistically, a smart criminal could evade the power of the state, but he/she would be hampered by exactly the same barriers that those trying to use bitcoin outside the purview of the state for more salubrious reasons encounter, e.g., inability to access onramps/offramps, limited bitcoin payments infrastructure (actually this is an area of growth - I'm still interested in exploring how mainstream payments companies' embrace of bitcoin will change this. Can you actually pay all Visa merchants with bitcoin without first entering Visa's infrastructure? I'm pretty sure they announced that is coming), etc.

Bitcoin remains, then, a neutral network. In my opinion, this is a net positive, and something I hope endures. As with other things such as speech, I prefer more freedom, not less, and I'm willing to take the bad with the good. Even if bitcoin was used for illicit activity at the same relative and absolute levels as fiat currencies (which it is not, by far), I think I would feel the same. As put by my favorite bitcoin commentator:



Has this activity initiated a sell-off? The answer is interesting, but ultimately irrelevant to me.

[shera]

Chart shows last time BTC was above $40k was May 18

I'm on Coinbase, maybe the coinbase premium in effect? My account shows fills 13 days ago at two levels, 40190 and 40785. Are you looking at trading view? Which exchange?

edit, I went digging further into my account record, the exact day was May 24th

[CirqueScaler]

And to respond to some things:

So people think that the FBI hacked the wallet holding the bitcoin? That doesn't coincide with DOJ's statement that they obtained the bitcoin with a warrant for seizure, unless you think they are lying.

Some custodial accounts are insured but then you give up even pseudo-anonymity which begs the question how is crypto different from any other type of banking in that scenario?

Good point; it's not - I think many in the Bitcoin community eschew custodial accounts that are susceptible to this kind of state pressure, as you point out. And this is actually going to be motivation for me to move my bitcoin out of my digital wallet that I use and into cold storage. I had bought the hardware wallet about a month ago but just haven't gotten around to moving my coins! How foolish of me... the FBI could be applying for a warrant (or not) right now!

When someone feels the need to post incessantly defending something, it suggests there might be a problem with it. Maybe they're trying to convince themselves.

Respectfully, it would seem that both sides are posting incessantly. It's a fun thread. I don't think this goes against Bitcoin as you think. If only from a numbers perspective, defenders of bitcoin would need to post more volume-wise to make up for the smaller number of bitcoin defenders in this thread (and in the world in general).

[CirqueScaler]

Also, Shera, stalefish, anyone else - did you watch the Bitcoin 2021 conference? I did, thought it was incredible. Jack Dorsey's interview was really, really interesting. I live-blogged the interview for another audience if anyone wants to get the summary.

And here's a recap from Nic Carter that is hugely positive: https://twitter.com/nic__carter/status/1402021636728135682?s=20

[stalefish3169]

Are you just restating posts in your own words? Because nobody said the protocol is insecure but that doesn't mean it's immune to other types of hacks. The main thing is, unlike with stolen credit card info for example, there's not much recourse when that happens. Some custodial accounts are insured but then you give up even pseudo-anonymity which begs the question how is crypto different from any other type of banking in that scenario?

Kinnikinnick insinuated that the BTC protocol was insecure a few posts above with the phrase claw back.

Again. If you're comparing BTC to Visa...you don't get it. Not even close. Seriously, do some research.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[stalefish3169]

Also, Shera, stalefish, anyone else - did you watch the Bitcoin 2021 conference? I did, thought it was incredible. Jack Dorsey's interview was really, really interesting. I live-blogged the interview for another audience if anyone wants to get the summary.

And here's a recap from Nic Carter that is hugely positive: https://twitter.com/nic__carter/status/1402021636728135682?s=20

I watched parts of it. But unfortunately the most popular clip seems to Max yelling at Elon. Lol

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[MultiVerse]

Personally, I don't think this news story fairly benefits crypto skeptics or evangelists.

Respectfully, it would seem that both sides are posting incessantly.

It's important not to confuse taking a side with the absence of unbounded enthusiasm. If there was a thread like this one claiming MMT also offers the key to economic salvation then there would be plenty of objections to those sorts of outsized claims too.

Kinnikinnick insinuated that the BTC protocol was insecure a few posts above with the phrase claw back.

Again. If you're comparing BTC to Visa...you don't get it. Not even close. Seriously, do some research.

Bitcoiners: Bitcoin is an unseizable asset

FBI: hold my beer


As far as Visa comparisons go, most wallets and transactions are handled by the exchange platforms. The majority of crypto users are on an exchange and don't use a wallet. Exchange platforms are necessary in part because like the Bitcoin Network, the Lighting Network does not scale either.

[stalefish3169]

When someone feels the need to post incessantly defending something, it suggests there might be a problem with it. Maybe they're trying to convince themselves.

If my replies weren't debunking completely incorrect statements, you'd have a point. Unfortunately, most of the naysayers here get their information from this thread and mainstream media outlets, neither of which get even the basics right.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[CirqueScaler]

As far as Visa comparisons go, most wallets and transactions are handled by the exchange platforms. Exchange platforms are necesary in part because the Lighting Network does not scale either.

What do you mean when you say transactions (in the context of a Visa comparison) are handled by exchange platforms? And why do you say Lightning doesn't scale?

[Meathelmet]

Personally, I don't think this news story fairly benefits crypto skeptics or evangelists. Bitcoin worked as described, so no views should be changed. Realistically, a smart criminal could evade the power of the state, but he/she would be hampered by exactly the same barriers that those trying to use bitcoin outside the purview of the state for more salubrious reasons encounter, e.g., inability to access onramps/offramps, limited bitcoin payments infrastructure (actually this is an area of growth -

I think it is here where the narratives spun by Stale and other evangelists run aground that the Bitcoin (or many other cryptos) are a system that facilitates individuals autonomy regarding statehoods/governments/fiscal institutions. That crypto could somehow be inert to outside actors and provide (any) kind of long term security. It does not. At least one can shove a kilobar up the ass or bury diamonds in the backyard and attain some level of resistance towards "hostile" intent.
Sadly both have the same achilles heel: retrieval.

[shera]

Well I just got a buy filled at 31335.

I saw a couple of things about the conference, but I wasn't that interested. I saw Max Keiser tearing up money. I saw someone saying that you hate bitcoin if you're not a maxi? I saw Jack Mallers crying about El Salvadore - I love that kid, the hero we don't deserve.

Too much drama for me, somewhat like this thread tbh.

[MultiVerse]

What do you mean when you say transactions (in the context of a Visa comparison) are handled by exchange platforms? And why do you say Lightning doesn't scale?

In the context of Visa or as a currency or whatever, Proof-of-Work makes Bitcoin inherently unusable as a currency and that's why the narrative shifted to bitcoin as a settlement layer and/or a store of value even though it was originally intended as a native payment layer for the web.

The Lightning Network or second layer was built to solve Bitcoin's scalability problem but it too is limited by the Proof-of-Work consensus mechanism because it is limited by the core Bitcoin blockchain (L2 transactions are bounded by L1 transactions resulting in about four hundred thousand max daily L2 transactions).

As a result Bitcoin is centralized around a handful of crypto exchanges. Ironically, Bitcoin is more centralized than the banking system.

[Meathelmet]

Too much drama for me, somewhat like this thread tbh.

Opposing opinions interlaced with facts can be abrasive. Just carry on mining with your rig, enjoy that heat in the summer while the yields drop.
Fascinating to see how on various forums the reality is kicking in: bang for buck is getting shittier by day, rigs/cards bought with loan start to melt along with the hashrate and one has to actually live with the consequences of sauna like apartment. Used cards are starting to flood into forums and buyers are not that interested as the memories are shot due to poor heatpads.

All this while the more rigorous enthusiasts start to do the calculations how much they have actually earned with mining. Geezers around here have made some 7000€/8 months with 300hash systems and after taxes/electricity/upkeep/costs the profits have been around 500€.... #drama

[CirqueScaler]

In the context of Visa or as a currency or whatever, Proof-of-Work makes Bitcoin inherently unusable as a currency and that's why the narrative shifted to bitcoin as a settlement layer and/or a store of value even though it was originally intended as a native payment layer for the web.

The Lightning Network or second layer was built to solve Bitcoin's scalability problem but it too is limited by the Proof-of-Work consensus mechanism because it is limited by the core Bitcoin blockchain (L2 transactions are bounded by L1 transactions resulting in about 400 thousand max daily L2 transactions).

As a result Bitcoin is centralized around a handful of crypto exchanges. Ironically, Bitcoin is more centralized than the banking system.

My understanding is that lightning channels can be kept open for as long as one wishes. For some parties, that may be as long as one wishes (let's disregard an apparently incompatibility with bitcoin's original ideas just for this). Does your 400k max l2 transactions per day assume some kind of txn limit per lightning channel?

If you have any lightning documentation (or commentary) that you can link, that'd be very helpful - thanks.

I saw a couple of things about the conference, but I wasn't that interested. I saw Max Keiser tearing up money. I saw someone saying that you hate bitcoin if you're not a maxi? I saw Jack Mallers crying about El Salvadore - I love that kid, the hero we don't deserve.

I'm separately very intrigued by Square - everything they do seems to be visionary - so I really wanted to see dorsey's interview and it was excellent. Would recommend checking it out if you also have overlapping interest. If not, then it might not be very interesting.

[MultiVerse]

Lightning channels can be kept open but require at minimum two transactions per each wallet on the core blockchain. The limitation is with the bitcoin Blockchain. The four hundred thousand max daily L2 transactions should read four hundred thousand max daily additional single channel transactors (not transactions).

In other words, the limitation is in the number of L2 channels that you can transact with. As a practical matter a wallet or user needs more than a single channel, further limiting what the Lightning Network can accomplish. For example, it would take almost a year and a half just to set up a channel for the reported 100 million bitcoin users (100,000,000 * 2 / 400,000) / 365) = 1.4 years. With a billion users it take fourteen years just to set up a single channel for each wallet.

[stalefish3169]

If my replies weren't debunking completely incorrect statements, you'd have a point. Unfortunately, most of the naysayers here get their information from this thread and mainstream media outlets, neither of which get even the basics right.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

It's important not to confuse taking a side with the absence of unbounded enthusiasm. If there was a thread like this one claiming MMT also offers the key to economic salvation then there would be plenty of objections to those sorts of outsized claims too.




Bitcoiners: Bitcoin is an unseizable asset

FBI: hold my beer


As far as Visa comparisons go, most wallets and transactions are handled by the exchange platforms. The majority of crypto users are on an exchange and don't use a wallet. Exchange platforms are necessary in part because like the Bitcoin Network, the Lighting Network does not scale either.

We already have MMT for the rich and rugged individualism for the poor.

This tweet pretty much sums up why I'm so passionate about our system being broken and confused by the Stockholm Syndrome crowd in this thread.

https://twitter.com/HukAleksandra/st...527803904?s=19

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[MultiVerse]

If credit card companies taking advantage of the poor is the issue then the ugly truth behind the BTC rewards cards discussed here a few pages ago is America’s poor foot much of the bill for credit card points, miles, cash back and crypto rewards:

https://www.tiktok.com/music/origina...39378740873990