Bitcoin Beach also wasn't a secret; it's been loudly and widely publicized.
So then why, when I said that Bitcoin Beach was a grassroots Bitcoin adoption that the government then was later inspired by, did you "correct" me by lying that Bitcoin Beach came after the government did their thing?
Bitcoin literally has lost 21% of its value since the beginning of the month and 10% just over the weekend.
Hahahaha! You should see that video so you get a better idea of what's happening with the crap you're using. You're spending your life working and amassing wealth, only to have 20% of your wealth go backwards, wondering why most people are getting poorer and poorer, and then are complaining about a 20% temporary drop that is still a 160% rise over the year XD Ugh, you guys deserve exactly what you're fighting for.
in line with most economist's analysis about the fallout from the Bitcoin Law.
Most economists don't understand Bitcoin either, and Bitcoin has been
hilariously proving economists wrong for over a decade. These are the same economists who said it's a bubble and that it will never reach $100.
A market crash wiping out 80% of value by definition the result of an unexpected outcome.
That never happened in Bitcoin. There was a slow decline, but that's was somewhat expected. Same as a "crash" wiping out 99% of the value of the USD was completely expected.
I feel the events of the weekend have changed the math on how good an idea that was.
You're obviously not an economists, and as I've said many times, your biggest problem is that you always focus on the now, seemingly being incapable of predicting the future. The weekend wiped out leveraged positions, making the base price stronger.
All due respect to Jan Moller and, to lesser extent, you, but law enforcement has largely kept up with with tracing cryptocurrencies and is past the point of using third parties track transactions, recent recoveries like the
Colonial Pipeline ransomware situation and others. ... Unlike you, I talk about what I know.
Do you have any proof of that claim that they're "past the point of using third parties to track?" Because Chainslysis is still getting business from FBI, CIA, and other global agencies, and their demands are growing really really fast. Do you even know HOW they found the guy in the Colonial Pipeline ransomware? I have a pretty good guess, but I'm curious if you know, or are again just making shit up. You claim you talk about what you know, so back that up and tell me how the ransomware worked and how they busted him.
And nah, you're wrong about it being easier to track Bitcoin transactions, but I'm not wasting time on you with that.
The key phrase here is fraud protection for your concerns about commercial banking; as long as you're above board, you've got nothing to fear and the money is yours. That is how fraud protection works.
You can call it fraud protection, but that's still not settlement. Fraud protection is part of the reason banks have the biggest buildings in every city and are to rich they're too big to fail. Bitcoin doesn't need fraud protection to
STIMULATE settlement.
It also sounds like you're crude describing the overnight market, which is mainly for bank and financial institutions.
That's lending and to a point settlement. But yes, in settlement case, that's when the money you send to someone via a bank transfer ACTUALLY gets there. And it's never the next night.
The Lightning Network has several problems it needs to address and I'll reiterate that a large portion Bitcoin users don't use the Lightning Network currently.
And I'll reiterate that you have an actual mental defect that prevents you from seeing trends and making predictions. Large portion of people don't use a lot of technology, until they do. That's not an argument against anything.
And the average transaction for Bitcoin is 10 minutes,
Instant if on lightning network.
Consider that Lightning Network doesn't totally solve the problem of Bitcoin's fluctuating transaction fees since network congestion is only one factor that influences the transaction fees.
Lightning Network fees have no relation to on chain network congestion. There's no congestion on Lightning, because there are no limits on Lightning.
There are also concerns about opening and closing costs
Taproot, a recent upgrade, addresses a lot of that, and there are other ways to bypass that problem.
On the security side of things, keeping the nodes of the Lightning Network online at all times to send and receive payments makes them susceptible, allowing Bitcoins to be stolen if the computer storing their private keys is compromised.
That's true, but at the very worst, that's a problem every single bank has already, since banks are also just nodes connected to the internet at all times. So these Lightning nodes already use bank level security to protect themselves, and it's only getting better too. And if you're an end user, you don't actually have to keep your keys online, since like with plain Bitcoin, they're only needed to send payments.
Going offline has its own drawbacks, since one of the two parties on a payment channel could close the channel and steal the funds while the other party is away. I think this is called fraudulent channel closing, if I'm not mistaken.
Yes. There are methods for dealing with that as well, called watch towers, that monitor for fraudulent close and alert you. They're still in development though. You can also just run your own small node for $100 worth of hardware if you have a lot of money to worry about. Less than what you'll pay through credit cards, especially if merchants start passing the fees on to you and giving you discounts for using Bitcoin.
A serious systemic risk to the platform that Lightning Network needs to address is that a malicious actor could create numerous channels and force them to expire, which would broadcast to the blockchain and cause congestion that overwhelms the block. That actor could use the congestion to steal the funds of parties unable to withdraw their funds because of the congestion. I know Lighting Network developers and have admitted as much.
That's a risk, because if the ones he's stealing from by closing a prior channel state broadcast a correct transaction and get it to confirm, ALL the money on the channels, including his, will go to them. So if I stand to lose $500 due to theft, and gain $1000 (including his $500) from defending myself, I'd be willing to pay up to $500 transaction fee or more to screw him and get my money back. Oh, and I'll have something like a week to do it in. It would cost him a lot of money to keep the network congested for that long too.
Yeah that's good, but the mere fact he has him on the show means that he's supporting it...which means it's probably bad and a lie by default.
Tucker didn't know anything about Bitcoin and just brought an expert in to talk about it and listen. Like I said, Tucker almost never even says anything. And I never watch his show myself, but the interview was pretty informative even to myself. But whatever excuse you want to tell yourself to keep your head in the sand is fine.
www.bitchute.com
www.coingecko.com
www.wsj.com
dailyhodl.com
