goldbug9999

In a nutshell the current payment rails are expensive because the system is debt/credit based and so each party involved needs to contribute to the cost of insuring and settling the debt. Lightning OTOH has all transfers fully funded from positive balances of funds and this is workable because, as @dugsbodymentions, most people just want to hoard bitcoin and some proportion of those hoarded funds will be put to work essentially earning a yield in the lightning network. So essentially it will work for the exact reason that @dugsbodythinks it wont.

Indeed, its fiat money that fund wars.

You do know that Ukraine received about $100 million in crypto donations right ? and that the early donations meant that they were able to buy supplies like ammo and body armour several days earlier than they would otherwise have since there was no banking delay (the suppliers accepted the cypto as payment directly).

Maybe it will have its day but ultimately its just fiat which is at the end of its lifecycle as a concept and has no investment potential.

CBDCs - yawn, its like getting excited about compuserve when the internet was just kicking off.

The obvious move for the US is tacit bitcoin adoption since Americans own the majority of it (unlike gold for instance). It would ensure that America (or at least its citizens) retains control over the dominant store of wealth and de facto reserve currency for the world. To start with they have to operate a plausible deniability stance "were not sure we like this bitcoin thing" so as not to tank the dollar but as time passes they can relax and more to overt encouragement. We will probably see a trickle of US states officially adopt bitcoin as tender over the next decade.

Clearly Russians havnt been listening to @Warlord's mate.

-- another dulicate (this site is but ******ed up up at the moment)

-- duplicate

Email from Binance this morning .... So much for the "clamp down" then.

Its not much of a example if it doesn't even have theoretical feasibility. I mean what are they going to do - ban random number generators ?.

The wallets address is not set when shipped, the owner triggers its generation, plus the owner can generate their own address separately and import it into the wallet. It honestly embarrassing how little you understand the mechanisms involved.

Good old Longgone, falling back to the classics like "they wont let it happen".

No, because there is no answer that you are intelligent enough to understand.

Being sold for more fiat later IS the main use case, as is also the case for gold or indeed anything with a limited supply ... and yes this is sustainable because the supply of fiat will never stop growing.

CBDCs are a great advert for bitcoin.

As a self professed cautious low risk investor, isn't this doing the exact the opposite ?. If you want an outside bet then why not just spend the money on lottery tickets (since thats what low cap alts essentially are) ?.

Thats exactly what I was getting at, thing is that EVERYONE I know of, including all the holders on here, who bought bitcoin eventually (me included) did not do so on first exposure and we all went through that same "if only I'd bought at xxx" thought process. You can look back a bit in this thread and see where, when bitcoin was about 10k, that I specifically said that people would one day look back and think "if only I had bought at 10k" and here we are. Thing is I can say it again - one day people will be looking back and thinking "if only I had bought at 40/50k or whatever. A certain proportion of people will never be able to get over the fact that there is no explicit underlying backing resource, not realising that its this very absence of such that makes it the game changer that it is. Of course those very same people often happily invest in precious metals with valuations dominated by non backed speculative premium and see absolutely no irony in their actions.

"regulatory clarity" Ah they are all waiting for @Warlord's mate to give them the nod.

So rather than do your own thinking about its merits or lack of, your going to base your decision on some intangible perceived attitude of its proponents ?. I'm not asking anyone here to join anything, if everyone whos ever read this thread stays out of it, its of absolutely no consequence to me.

You either believe in the once in a civilisation global sound money emergence or you don't. If you do believe in that narrative as I do then the only logical outcome is that bitcoin out performs everything over the long term, and does so forever. Back in 2013 you no doubt would have scoffed at the idea that it would ever be worth 10k, in 2018 that it would ever be worth 50k so of course by the same yardstick 200k sound preposterous. in 2 or 3 years when it IS worth 200k you will scoffing at the idea that it will one day be worth a million, and so on.

Utter ******** point actually, bitcoin cannot be seized, the government merely acquired a compromised private key, noone's bitcoin is at risk unless they allow their private key to be compromised. In this specific case the key was stored in plain text in dropbox.

Indeed and bitcoin gave them (including me) a second bite at the cherry. Back in 2013 I aborted a house purchase and used the deposit to buy bitcoin instead. Yes I lost out on maybe 120k ish appreciation on that house but I've made significantly more on my bitcoin investment. This thread must be close to its 10th anaversary soon, the opportunity been there staring everyone on here in the face for that long.

Your trolling is pretty one dimensional, you need to diversify maybe tell us its like tulips, or maybe throw in some golden oldies like "they wont let it happen", or "blockchain technology is interesting but not for currency".

Another super power that is foolishly ignoring @Warlord's mate.