Earlier quoted context omitted.
0 * 1000 = 0 Actually, my card costs me negative money to use. I get cash back with no annual fee.
And who do you think pays for that cashback?
[deleted]
Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person
201–210 of 235 posts
Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems an odd comment. Algorithmic trading is an should be counted. It's volume! Shorts and other derivatives isn't because it's a different instrument. It's true there could (and probably is) wash trading going as well as other forms of laundering. But that's still genuine volume.
If I use 1 million dollars to make 1000 trades in and out of btc in a day that's a billion dollars of volume but maybe a couple of million in market depth could make that stable to enable those trades and a couple mill more could crash it.
Sure. As I mentioned:
> It's true there could (and probably is) wash trading going as well as other forms of laundering.
There's little evidence of large volumes of wash trading specifically on BTC though, and it's pretty easy to trace.
Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
I recently paid a lawyer I had to hire in the US with USDC, rather than paying 40€+ on top of exchange fees for each time I wire him money. Another use case is domains and servers. When big companies like Porkbun, namecheap and vultr offer their services to be bought via Bitcoin there is probably some demand.
That demand comes from scammers and other fun activities.
I have bought domains with bitcoin when they offer.
I heard someone used USD for a domain, and it turns out USD is used by scammers!
Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
It actually does. Miners choose which transactions to mine.
I thought miners decide which transactions to include after they win a block (which is extremely rare).
The transactions are part of what is hashed, so they have to be chosen before the miner starts trying to win the block
Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's why there's layer 2 solutions like Lightning to scale bitcoin's usability. And application-level solutions like Cash App.
Lighntning, also known as not-Bitcoin. Lightning does away with Bitcoin's guarantees, unless you close the channel after each transaction, at which point it costs more than sending BTC directly. And something like CashApp is even worse - it only uses BTC as a way to circumvent banking regulations, and for name recognition. Otherwise, it could just as easily work on top of regular banking, or do away with BTC entirely…
This first paragraph is simply untrue. You are always holding a valid signature to spend the latest funds.
The additional assumption vs simply holding your own funds is a throughput requirement: that miners not censor your transactions for some (up-front-chosen) period of time.
With normal funds there is a non-censoring requirement, but it's more vague since the miners may have to censor you forever to make your funds useless.
Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the new money, I mean it's an investment, I mean it's a store of value, it is a tech backbone for web 3.0, it is an online deed... Soon they will find something it is reaaaally good at. Might solve some prime number conjecture by accident if they solve enough sudokus, I mean hashes.
You make some great points. Money, investments, banks, programmable money, decentralized organizations, VC where investors don't need accreditation (great for the little guy, bad for the 1%), deeds, remittances, prediction markets. Even capturing a fraction of a fraction of those would be a massive. I used it quite a few times lately to pay open source contributors in countries that don't have access to Paypal. Paid…
[deleted]
Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
AI had tangible use cases even when it wasn't developed to the point where it could be applied to those. The problems AI is used to solve, existed before the technology to solve them. Bitcoin, and all the other "crypto"-tokens, have been looking for a problem to solve for 14 years.
A problem to solve? It is not uncommon for companies to loose over 2% of revenue in banking fees and other enforced banking inefficiencies for transactions that could be handled much more cheaply and efficently with crypto solutions
> not uncommon for companies to loose over 2% of revenue in banking fees and other enforced banking inefficiencies
Do you have a source for that number?
And even forgetting that "crypto" comes with both delays and transaction fees, it is also known to be able to lose most of it's value basically overnight. So unless companies want to wake up bankrupt, they'd have to constantly change real money into tokens and back again for their transactions. I wonder how efficient that would be.
Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
I may have misunderstood your point of gaming. If your point was that games do not need to be on-chain, then it _really_ begs the question of what utility NFTs provide. Rephrased, in a game that depends on proprietary centralized servers, what do I gain by having a public ledger that the game can query to say I own some asset? Or, alternatively, in a game that recognizes arbitrary decentralized permissions, what do I…
> what do I gain by having a public ledger that the game can query to say I own some asset? Literally read my comment that you replied to. > Scenario 5) Doesn't exist now - but I play an on-chain game and earn some NFT. This is then recognized in another on-chain game that gives added functionality. Everything is governed by DAO. Interop can be voted in This is how Illuvium works right now.
Illuvium is just a trading game with 3d graphics.
This is not what I meant at all
Their videos which tease advanced game mechanics look like pure hype to raise money from the gullible. Their white paper says nothing about how this works and their repo has no code.
Here's what I want to know:
Player 1 shoots. Can player 2 see the trajectory of the shot before it hits them?
If yes- how do they avoid cheating?
If no- how is this on-chain?
Eagerly waiting an answer to that
There are many more problems for on-chain games (that are not just trading with pretty skins), but let's start here
(probable spoiler alert: they don't have an answer to that, they don't actually have any on-chain physics or game mechanics beyond trading crypto assets, they only made the demo video to dupe investors)
Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
> NFTs can be minted in exchange for currency So can bearer tokens, client certificates, concert tickets, etc. Put up a webpage that takes payments (including crypto if you so desire) and hands out whatever authentication instrument you want upon successful payment. > can be traded between owners later A conventional, non-chain-based system can also include this functionality. Presenting your current bearer token and…
> Any system where this kind of transfer makes sense and is willing to allow this kind of trade already has it No it doesn’t have it. That was the whole point. The examples you gave had to each build their own in-house bespoke infrastructure for this functionality. With blockchains it already exists, it’s secure and any new app or user can start using it right away.
They don't need their own in-house bespoke infrastructure, the hard part is user identity, and there are many services that will host this for you and also integrate seamlessly with third party providers (Firebase, for example, which will let you identify via Google, Meta, GitHub, Twitter, etc. right out of the box)
The difference between Firebase and Ethereum+metamask isn't a significant development cost for anything beyond a toy weekend project.
The difference is only about trust.
The argument you want to make is that we shouldn't trust Firebase, they could steal our auth tokens and act on our behalf without our permission, so we need trustless decentralized solutions.
That would be a valid argument, but a hard sell to an audience that doesn't buy the premise. I'm not going to debate it.
However, it has nothing to do with the technical layer of auth which is just "prove that you know the secret" in all cases.
Either you don't understand how this works, or you're deliberately avoiding the point.
Where do you think Metamask stores your private key?
It would be trivial for Firebase to release a browser extension that used LocalStorage to store the secret, like Metamask, instead of regular web storage.
Re: Most Bitcoin Inscriptions belong to a single person
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
A problem to solve? It is not uncommon for companies to loose over 2% of revenue in banking fees and other enforced banking inefficiencies for transactions that could be handled much more cheaply and efficently with crypto solutions
Yes, because both BTC and ETH are well known for how cheap transactions are.
Typically less than half a percent, often lower.