The Bubbly Bitcoin Thread -- Merged Threads

[Lagarde's Drift]

Not gonna repeat the entire for Ur benefit. It's obvious that fiat has tangible value in and of itself as a system, as does bitcoin. To a much lesser degree now, gold.

[BufferBear Bitcoin Bull]

On 02/07/2023 at 22:58, A.steve said:

I don't confuse exchanges with bitcoin.  The exchange is where fees are charged in connection with intangible arbitrary bit-patterns; BitCoin is an intangible arbitrary bit pattern.

As for 'self sovereign' - what does that even mean?  Is it about pretending you're a Jaguar, or becoming the next Queen of England?  You're not alluding to omnipotence - are you? Cryptocurrencies don't promise that.

Permissionless and trustless.  Be your own bank.

On 03/07/2023 at 10:14, Lagarde's Drift said:

p.s. bull market must be starting again cos buffer is spamming the thread with videos again.

Posting educational content is not spamming.  Best not to resist at the cost of you and your family.  Be gracious and more curious.  Get off zero, honestly. 

Bitcoin is always in a bull market in my view.  The quicker people realise this the better.

 

[A.steve]

 

26 minutes ago, Buffer Bear said:

Permissionless and trustless.

Crypt  Cryptocurrencies still require a lot of trust... and blockchain is all about permissions.

26 minutes ago, Buffer Bear said:

Be your own bank.

LOL.  Should I make loans to myself - and service them - to establish a balance sheet... in order to profit from the fees for so-doing?

 

[Lagarde's Drift]

5 hours ago, A.steve said:

 

Crypt  Cryptocurrencies still require a lot of trust... and blockchain is all about permissions.

LOL.  Should I make loans to myself - and service them - to establish a balance sheet... in order to profit from the fees for so-doing?

 

You continually misunderstand. There is not trust required in BTC, at least once you've onramped. 

Loans need someone to give you a loan. Be Ur own bank refers to being incharge of Ur own funds and being able to move them around and pay whoever you wish whenever you wish. Not for everyone to be fair.

[Fed_Up]

10 hours ago, Lagarde's Drift said:

You continually misunderstand. There is not trust required in BTC, at least once you've onramped. 

Loans need someone to give you a loan. Be Ur own bank refers to being incharge of Ur own funds and being able to move them around and pay whoever you wish whenever you wish. Not for everyone to be fair.

Have you ever paid for goods or services in crypto? You'd have to trust someone a hell of a lot to send them 4 figures in crypto when they could just block you and ignore your calls.

I should know because I was selling mining rigs and took a couple of payments in crypto. Somewhat ironically when I took cash payment via PayPal it made them suspicious and they froze my account! Took the intervention of my MP to get my money back.

In those days they were suspicious of anything crypto, now you can use the platform to pay in crypto I believe. How times change.

[A.steve]

15 hours ago, Lagarde's Drift said:

You continually misunderstand. There is not trust required in BTC, at least once you've onramped. 

Loans need someone to give you a loan. Be Ur own bank refers to being incharge of Ur own funds and being able to move them around and pay whoever you wish whenever you wish. Not for everyone to be fair.

🙂 How ironic.

My trust is not required in BTC - but, if anyone were to think it valuable... their trust would be.

You talk about being able to move around bitcoin by yourself - but you have overlooked that it depends upon a distributed blockchain... which means you are still dependant upon lots of others.

[Lagarde's Drift]

1 hour ago, A.steve said:

🙂 How ironic.

My trust is not required in BTC - but, if anyone were to think it valuable... their trust would be.

You talk about being able to move around bitcoin by yourself - but you have overlooked that it depends upon a distributed blockchain... which means you are still dependant upon lots of others.

1 BTC = 1 BTC! No need to trust anyone. Sure, you need a number of miners and nodes to make it fully decentralised and distributed. But it is, now, and it ain't gonna stop. If you run Ur own node u don't have to depend on anyone other than Ur leccy and internet.

[MonsieurCopperCrutch]

The CEO of the largest asset manager on Earth calling Bitcoin digital gold on live TV 

 

 

[BufferBear Bitcoin Bull]

Hey @MonsieurCopperCrutch, I was just popping in to post this story. 
 

Don’tcha all know Bitcoin is for criminals? 

Edited July 6, 2023 by Buffer Bear

[BufferBear Bitcoin Bull]

https://twitter.com/neiljacobs/status/1669698794860969984?s=46

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 6, 2023 by Buffer Bear

[BufferBear Bitcoin Bull]

And for the doubters, check out the brilliant Nakamoto Portfolio Theory by Alpha Zeta of Swan, ex Goldman Sachs.

 

 

 

 

 

[BufferBear Bitcoin Bull]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BufferBear Bitcoin Bull]

This cut references Fink’s previous scepticism 

 

 

 

 

[A.steve]

7 hours ago, Lagarde's Drift said:

1 BTC = 1 BTC! No need to trust anyone. Sure, you need a number of miners and nodes to make it fully decentralised and distributed. But it is, now, and it ain't gonna stop. If you run Ur own node u don't have to depend on anyone other than Ur leccy and internet.

1 GBP = 1GBP; 1 USD = 1 USD; 1 BolloxToken =1 BolloxToken.  The tautology doesn't help.

If one were to embrace Bitcoin, one would need to transact using it.  For this, one needs others to trust it.  For others to have any trust in it, you need trust in the distributed ledger as a whole.   Everything still depends upon trust... you've chosen to trust different things.  You're dependant on a whole lot more than electricity and internet connectivity.  You're dependent on the distributed block-chain; you're dependent upon the implementation of Bitcoin software and you're dependent upon the platform on which you run that software.  All you get with Bitcoin is some computer output that some people have chosen to trust.  "Running a node" does not imply understanding it - let alone eliminate the need for trust.

Edited July 6, 2023 by A.steve

[Lagarde's Drift]

1 hour ago, A.steve said:

1 GBP = 1GBP; 1 USD = 1 USD; 1 BolloxToken =1 BolloxToken.  The tautology doesn't help.

If one were to embrace Bitcoin, one would need to transact using it.  For this, one needs others to trust it.  For others to have any trust in it, you need trust in the distributed ledger as a whole.   Everything still depends upon trust... you've chosen to trust different things.  You're dependant on a whole lot more than electricity and internet connectivity.  You're dependent on the distributed block-chain; you're dependent upon the implementation of Bitcoin software and you're dependent upon the platform on which you run that software.  All you get with Bitcoin is some computer output that some people have chosen to trust.  "Running a node" does not imply understanding it - let alone eliminate the need for trust.

😁😁😁😁 I think at this stage we can agree to disagree.  You have a point that there will always be a degree of trust but there are ways to minimise. Especially with decentralised open source software. But never mind. 

[tbeckbeck]

Hi people, 

Brand new to Bitcoin, I've been doing a lot of reading up on it. So I understand quite a bit on how it works, but I've still not really got an understanding of what makes Bitcoin so secure. When I listen to Max Keiser or Micheal Saylor they seem certain it can't be hacked and I believe them. But I don't think they explain it clearly which is so fustrating.

For example I watched an interview with Keiser the other day and he said something like "The more you try to attack it the stronger it gets, because you attack it with computational power, which enhances those to continue to mine it, which means the hashrate (bitcoins underlying power) gets stronger, which makes it more secure, which therefore makes the price go higher"

Could anyone explain this to me, because I don't get it.

From what I've read a 51% attack is a genuine fear of many people in the bitcoin space, but Keiser doesn't seem to fear it at all. Why is that?? What does Keiser know?? Surely a gov like the US or China could just buy loads of computers, or confiscate the current miners equipment. Then reach the 51% and break the network??

[70PC]

5 minutes ago, tbeckbeck said:

Hi people, 

Brand new to Bitcoin, I've been doing a lot of reading up on it. So I understand quite a bit on how it works, but I've still not really got an understanding of what makes Bitcoin so secure. When I listen to Max Keiser or Micheal Saylor they seem certain it can't be hacked and I believe them. But I don't think they explain it clearly which is so fustrating.

For example I watched an interview with Keiser the other day and he said something like "The more you try to attack it the stronger it gets, because you attack it with computational power, which enhances those to continue to mine it, which means the hashrate (bitcoins underlying power) gets stronger, which makes it more secure, which therefore makes the price go higher"

Could anyone explain this to me, because I don't get it.

From what I've read a 51% attack is a genuine fear of many people in the bitcoin space, but Keiser doesn't seem to fear it at all. Why is that?? What does Keiser know?? Surely a gov like the US or China could just buy loads of computers, or confiscate the current miners equipment. Then reach the 51% and break the network??

"The anonymous cyber vigilante harnessed blockchain and bitcoin technologies to undermine Russia's aggressive stance. After leveraging expert-level skills to infiltrate the wallets, the hacker transferred the stolen bitcoins to addresses associated with Ukrainian volunteers working to support the besieged nation."

[MonsieurCopperCrutch]

16 hours ago, Buffer Bear said:

Hey @MonsieurCopperCrutch, I was just popping in to post this story. 
 

Don’tcha all know Bitcoin is for criminals? 

Hey @Buffer Bear great minds think alike. 

Yes I certainly heard the rumours that Bitcoin is just for criminals as it's oft repeated on here. But maybe that's why the bankster cartels now want a slice. One thing is for sure I'd rather be holding Bitcoin that filthy fiat or overhyped gold right now. Only nine more months until the next halvening. It's going to be a wild epoch so I hope that you are buckled up. 🧡🧡🧡🧡

[MonsieurCopperCrutch]

2 hours ago, 70PC said:

"The anonymous cyber vigilante harnessed blockchain and bitcoin technologies to undermine Russia's aggressive stance. After leveraging expert-level skills to infiltrate the wallets, the hacker transferred the stolen bitcoins to addresses associated with Ukrainian volunteers working to support the besieged nation."

Maybe I am missing something but what do wallets have to do with the blockchain's hashing power? 

[70PC]

1 hour ago, MonsieurCopperCrutch said:

Maybe I am missing something but what do wallets have to do with the blockchain's hashing power? 

I have no idea. You are asking the wrong person. 

[70PC]

1 hour ago, MonsieurCopperCrutch said:

Maybe I am missing something but what do wallets have to do with the blockchain's hashing power? 

Following up on this.  Cash in a wallet can be taken by muggers or by breaking into your house. The technical details are not my area but if Bitcoins can be stolen from wallets by someone using a computer, Bitcoins are not "so secure".

[markyh]

5 minutes ago, 70PC said:

Following up on this.  Cash in a wallet can be taken by muggers or by breaking into your house. The technical details are not my area but if Bitcoins can be stolen from wallets by someone using a computer, Bitcoins are not "so secure".

They cant, without the password to the wallet, or knowing your wallets private key.  Cracking a wallet password is much more likely as that is still user defined, anyone with sense wont have one alpha numeric un 20 characters long. 

To hash a private key from a public key is technically possible, the problem is time. You new a few thousand year even with supercomputers. 

We have done this to death since 2013 too. Like clockwork. 

[70PC]

4 minutes ago, markyh said:

They cant, without the password to the wallet, or knowing your wallets private key.  Cracking a wallet password is much more likely as that is still user defined, anyone with sense wont have one alpha numeric un 20 characters long. 

To hash a private key from a public key is technically possible, the problem is time. You new a few thousand year even with supercomputers. 

We have done this to death since 2013 too. Like clockwork. 

Fair enough but this guy had a way:

"After leveraging expert-level skills to infiltrate the wallets, the hacker transferred the stolen bitcoins to addresses associated with Ukrainian volunteers working to support the besieged nation."

[A.steve]

13 hours ago, Lagarde's Drift said:

😁😁😁😁 I think at this stage we can agree to disagree.  You have a point that there will always be a degree of trust but there are ways to minimise. Especially with decentralised open source software. But never mind. 

Disagree if you like.  I did not try to quantify or compare fiat and cryptocurrency risk... In many ways, the actual risks are incomparable.  Whether you like it or not, both have substantial risks - neither is risk free.  The risks are different in nature - so are not meaningfully comparable.

I verge upon being obsessive about decentralisation; I'm also a huge fan of open source software.  However, I do not wear rose-tinted technical glasses - I do not presume that actual risks can be eliminated.

[Lagarde's Drift]

3 hours ago, 70PC said:

Following up on this.  Cash in a wallet can be taken by muggers or by breaking into your house. The technical details are not my area but if Bitcoins can be stolen from wallets by someone using a computer, Bitcoins are not "so secure".

Bitcoin doesn't exist in Ur wallet. It exists in a public ledger that anyone can see and read. Ur wallet is actually a key to access Ur part of the ledger and make a transaction. What is stolen is not the bitcoin from the wallet if u like, it's actually the key.