Crypto Currency Thread
Discussion
Behemoth said:
Stronger functions will get implemented far, far in advance of any computer being able to crack them.
How does the bitcoin ecosystem decide to change the hashing protocol - do users need to vote for it? Or does a fork get imposed, whereupon 'old' bitcoin trends to zero over time as it becomes un-secure.NickCQ said:
How does the bitcoin ecosystem decide to change the hashing protocol - do users need to vote for it? Or does a fork get imposed, whereupon 'old' bitcoin trends to zero over time as it becomes un-secure.
There'd be a proposal first and foremost (a BIP in bitcoin parlance), upon which devs would recommend an upgrade. In this particular case it'd be a hard fork & all nodes would voluntarily follow the upgrade. The newly adopted chain would immediately be secured, including its history.The more interesting aspect is to do with lost keys / unmoved coins (like Satoshis coins from the first blocks). As well as the hashing algo that runs the blockchain, Bitcoin wallets and all the private keys within them would need upgrading . A quantum computer could theoretically break the keys for these & if the owners don't move to secure these wallets, the bitcoin in them could and will go walkies.
WindyCommon said:
China what?
You could Google it. The sharp turn came as Chinese President Xi Jinping spoke highly of the decentralized technology on which the digital currency is founded, telling members of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee that the country should "seize the opportunity" of blockchain.
"We must take the blockchain as an important breakthrough for independent innovation of core technologies," Xi said. "[We must] clarify the main direction, increase investment, focus on a number of key core technologies, and accelerate the development of blockchain technology and industrial innovation."
Into the low $7ks again now for BTC
Whilst I agree with Mark Yusko’s call that investors should 'get off zero' it clearly isn't an asset class that everyone is going to be comfortable having a significant portion of their wealth tied up in, yet.
Whilst I agree with Mark Yusko’s call that investors should 'get off zero' it clearly isn't an asset class that everyone is going to be comfortable having a significant portion of their wealth tied up in, yet.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 26th November 19:46
dimots said:
JPJPJP said:
Still doing better than Neil Woodford.
dimots said:
It’s trending to zero. A phrase I first heard on this thread in relation to btc price. Total bs obviously but then so much is.
It’s not trending to zero is it? It’s asset backed and those assets are being liquidated prior to being returned. And no one’s legal entitlement has disappeared, nothing has been taken by third parties and the unwinding of assets is being governed by a regulatory framework. The two things couldn’t be more disparate. Such an event has nothing at all in common with a crypto ceasing to have value.
DonkeyApple said:
It’s not trending to zero is it? It’s asset backed and those assets are being liquidated prior to being returned. And no one’s legal entitlement has disappeared, nothing has been taken by third parties and the unwinding of assets is being governed by a regulatory framework.
The two things couldn’t be more disparate. Such an event has nothing at all in common with a crypto ceasing to have value.
Someone's feeling defensive.The two things couldn’t be more disparate. Such an event has nothing at all in common with a crypto ceasing to have value.
dimots said:
DonkeyApple said:
It’s not trending to zero is it? It’s asset backed and those assets are being liquidated prior to being returned. And no one’s legal entitlement has disappeared, nothing has been taken by third parties and the unwinding of assets is being governed by a regulatory framework.
The two things couldn’t be more disparate. Such an event has nothing at all in common with a crypto ceasing to have value.
Someone's feeling defensive.The two things couldn’t be more disparate. Such an event has nothing at all in common with a crypto ceasing to have value.
One owns companies which have invested money in physical assets, which if required can be sold to release cash, and which have a value to someone for the purpose they were originally constructed.
The other is made up of bits of data from calculations done in China, with no inherent value or worth, other than that attached to it by people buying them, in the hope someone else will pay more for them later.
The other is made up of bits of data from calculations done in China, with no inherent value or worth, other than that attached to it by people buying them, in the hope someone else will pay more for them later.
Condi said:
One owns OVERVALUED SHARES IN companies which have invested money in physical assets, which if required can be sold AT A LOSS to release cash, and which have a value to someone for the purpose they were originally constructed.
FTFY.Edited by dimots on Tuesday 26th November 16:53
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff