511–520 of 533 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can do a Segwit transaction with an “old” Pay-to-Script-Hash (P2SH) transaction. That is an address that starts with "3". You only get the transaction size discount with “native” segwit transactions that are BECH32. https://www.ledger.com/academy/difference-between-segwit-and...
I know and they support both for a while now. Why would they not support it if it saves fees?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
exchanges have been around for almost a century now, so coinbase actually has a huge disadvantage in that they have no institutional stickiness or users, exchanges are built on trust and I would not want my money being routed through them if I was a client.
Just curious, which kind of exchanges do you mean that are 100 years young? The first stock exchange came to be >400 years ago and I guess there are currency or other exchanges that were there before. (Sorry if I just seem to want to point out a mistake - your first sentence just sounds so specific that it just got me interested in what you mean.)
It is strange, that so far Coinbase has not took any steps towards supporting the Lightning Network. If the Coinbase app supported it, that would allow all of the Coinbase users to do real decentralized micropayments. Any theories, why they don't do that?
LN can be used privately if you send to your own wallet, and Coinbase likes to track what people do after their coins leave Coinbase. Brian said they can't list privacy friendly coins like XMR due to regulations. LN is also unreliable to this day and i frequently get routing issues about 15% of the time using the most popular custodial LN wallets and sending to popular LN payment gateways. I'm guessing it would be ev…
I know he’s said this but it’s 100% bullshit since Kraken is able to list XMR just fine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You won't see this discussed on HN, there's an overall hostility toward Bitcoin. A few are interested or sometimes involved with it (whether with development or infrastructure) but don't bother enlightening the crowd since I think it's pretty hopeless here and they would be buried under downvotes. I wonder if that resentment would have been the same toward the Internet in 1997. You know, that useless thing for hacker…
Tech people were hugely enthusiastic about Internet-like things even before the internet existed. I know Arthur C Clarke predicted satellite TV in 1957; I'm sure one could find lots of examples of internet prediction, some positive, some negative (e.g. The Machine Stops, 1928). But 97 was late for the internet. ARPANET dates back to the 1970s .. as a government project! There was a great deal of value in the internet…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the lightning network is garbage?
The protocol itself? Why do you think so?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see this discussed in enough HN threads. Everyone is quick to talk about FTX, Tether being a scam, etc but I rarely hear people discuss how the heck BTC is pegged at $16k this whole time, through it all.
My theory is that a lot of prices in cryptoworld is set more by "vibes" rather that analysis of value and fundamental utility. You often see crypto prices hitting whole number price floors on the way down. I think it is from traders picking buy order prices by their gut feeling which leads to more whole numbers. BTC fell through a few of these whole number price floors on the way down, this is just the one that final…
The one thing that surprises me in all this is that the BTC price has stayed at a stable 16k since mid October.
I don’t know but I don’t like that stability in a gambling market. This is not the case of asset being stable because the business is stable - there is no business beyond betting on the price of the asset. For me this is an indication of loss of interest in the casino. Even if there seems to be a trading volume, i’m skeptical of that trading. Maybe it’s just painting the tape? What are those people achieving by tradi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You'll note that when it goes wrong in each of those cases, we lock the perpetrators up in a box. And their company's value drops according to the new information.
Totally, because the _expected future value_ changes with the new information. If they had actually created something of value, that wouldn't change because of new information. But they hadn't, and yet their companies were worth billions. "Provides value" is loosely connected to "expected future value", but it's certainly not the same thing.
But back to your point: it is possible to simulate either or both of those things and have eager investors get in early, but that's why they (probably) get in for less money than if the company had done what it claimed. They took a risk, and taking a risk is one of the valuable contributions one can make to a company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If any startups want to put me on payroll just to increase their headcount for the purpose of raising more funding I'll happily take the money.
You missed the boat on that by a year. What we should all be asking ourselves is “am I on payroll at my current job to act as ballast?”