Bitcoins/Litecoins/Virtual Currencies

Flobee

Vyemm Raider
2,605
2,996
If you don't follow this space the BTC halving is in a couple days. This will cut the newly minted supply of bitcoin in half for the next 4 years, dropping its inflation rate below the Fed's. If you're the speculative type the halving historically precedes the big bull markets you've heard about in the last 8 years.

Most of the 'sane' estimates I see are expecting BTC to hit 100-250k at peak mid-2021.

Simultaneously Ethereum is about to start its Eth 2.0 implementation which will implement Proof of Stake to replace the Proof of Work algorithm currently in use + some scaling solutions. I won't try to summarize it any further than saying that ETH price is potentially set to scale drastically in the next couple years and overall there is a lot of excitement in the space.

I'm still pretty early in the learning phase on this stuff but I'm really impressed with what I'm seeing + the corporate interest that is being shown has a ton of promise. Feels kinda like the early internet.

EDIT: Halving explanation if you're interested. Talks about downsides for BTC from halving
 
Last edited:

Ravishing

Uninspiring Title
<Bronze Donator>
8,452
3,577
I've been holding due to the upcoming halving. I'm optimistic it will raise the BTC price but not to the 6 figure range. If it hits 20k by 2021 I think that would be extremely optimistic.

BTC is closely tied to the energy cost of mining, if miners are receiving half the payment then BTC price needs to double to compensate.

Of course there is a speculative market, but I think it'll always "correct" toward the actual mining costs
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

Flobee

Vyemm Raider
2,605
2,996
I dunno who the kids are in this podcast, but its mostly glasses talking anyway and he seems to know his stuff. Good overview of why the crypto people are so optimistic about the upcoming halving in regards to current world events. Good synopsis of the financial situation we're in I thought.

 

Flobee

Vyemm Raider
2,605
2,996
So Glasses Guy is Simon Dixon and I've gone down the rabbit hole with him this morning. He's got some interesting perspectives about what is happening in the global economy and gave his overview in the video below on 4/20. Has been posting update videos since as things happen. He is a traditional market guy professionally that got into Bitcoin real early and now invests in crypto-startups etc.

 

Scoresby

Trakanon Raider
783
1,436
I've been holding due to the upcoming halving. I'm optimistic it will raise the BTC price but not to the 6 figure range. If it hits 20k by 2021 I think that would be extremely optimistic.

BTC is closely tied to the energy cost of mining, if miners are receiving half the payment then BTC price needs to double to compensate.

Of course there is a speculative market, but I think it'll always "correct" toward the actual mining costs

Or the number of miners will drop as they can no longer compete. Bitcoin price is for sure a function of energy cost, which is a function of difficulty which did actually get easier after the halving because of the number of miners at play. The bigger risk (long-term) is a significant reduction in mining operations to allow a single-party or small group to gain control and break the de-centralized nature of bitcoin.


Thinking about that a bit more I think it would be fair to say that short-term stops in operation that are related to energy and not legislation, would not significantly risk this as the hardware already exists and it's just a matter of using it again when operational costs come down (difficulty or energy cost drops). Long-term, newer technology will emerge and the hardware that was idled will be outclassed. I see this scenario causing a slow death for the coin as a mining monopoly (or majority) will form and compromise the integrity of the coin.

I honestly haven't been super close to it in a few years and only held onto 1 BTC and a smattering of alt-coins after the peak. There is a ton of speculation about crypto and it feels more like a crap-shoot the deeper down the rabbit hole you go. So much propaganda and technical analysis hyping crypto on the web. You realize it's a thinly veiled pyramid scheme that could go legitimate some-day, but there's a lot of rungs on that ladder (widespread adoption) still missing.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

Flobee

Vyemm Raider
2,605
2,996
Banks are getting into Bitcoin as of this month.

1590591235877.png


Commercial column has been 0 until the beginning of May.


There is likely some relation to this: JPMorgan Opens Accounts For Bitcoin Exchanges— Coinbase And Gemini Up First

Potentially strong indicator for future growth and adoption.
 

Flobee

Vyemm Raider
2,605
2,996
Tangentially related to crypto:


So I guess William Barr + Trump are going after corporations ability to utilize end-to-end encryption.

"Use of end-to-end encryption, which allows messages to be decrypted only by end users, leaves service providers unable to produce readable content in response to wiretap orders and search warrants. This barrier allows criminals to avoid apprehension by law enforcement by limiting access to crucial evidence in the form of encrypted digital communications. The use of end-to-end encryption and other highly sophisticated encryption technologies significantly hinders, or entirely prevents serious criminal and national security investigations.”

Why does law enforcement need to be able to spy on you to do their job? Are traditional investigation techniques insufficient in 2020? Curious if anyone has feedback on this. I'm moderately educated on cryptography and really can't see a positive to the Gov requiring all online communication be visible to them.
 

Asshat wormie

2023 Asshat Award Winner
<Gold Donor>
16,820
30,963
Tangentially related to crypto:


So I guess William Barr + Trump are going after corporations ability to utilize end-to-end encryption.

"Use of end-to-end encryption, which allows messages to be decrypted only by end users, leaves service providers unable to produce readable content in response to wiretap orders and search warrants. This barrier allows criminals to avoid apprehension by law enforcement by limiting access to crucial evidence in the form of encrypted digital communications. The use of end-to-end encryption and other highly sophisticated encryption technologies significantly hinders, or entirely prevents serious criminal and national security investigations.”

Why does law enforcement need to be able to spy on you to do their job? Are traditional investigation techniques insufficient in 2020? Curious if anyone has feedback on this. I'm moderately educated on cryptography and really can't see a positive to the Gov requiring all online communication be visible to them.
The fact that one of the source for one of the supporting arguments for this thesis is vox.com, this is dumpster fire levels of garbage thinking.
 

Flobee

Vyemm Raider
2,605
2,996
The fact that one of the source for one of the supporting arguments for this thesis is vox.com, this is dumpster fire levels of garbage thinking.
I made the assumption it was a true quote. That's fair. But with like 5 seconds of effort I found it. Was written in 2019 apparently.

Actual letter:

4 October 2019


Dear Mr. Zuckerberg,

OPEN LETTER: FACEBOOK’S “PRIVACY FIRST” PROPOSALS

We are writing to request that Facebook does not proceed with its plan to implement end-to-end encryption across its messaging services without ensuring that there is no reduction to user safety and without including a means for lawful access to the content of communications to protect our citizens.

In your post of 6 March 2019, “A Privacy-Focused Vision for Social Networking,” you acknowledged that “there are real safety concerns to address before we can implement end-to-end encryption across all our messaging services.” You stated that “we have a responsibility to work with law enforcement and to help prevent” the use of Facebook for things like child sexual exploitation, terrorism, and extortion. We welcome this commitment to consultation. As you know, our governments have engaged with Facebook on this issue, and some of us have written to you to express our views. Unfortunately, Facebook has not committed to address our serious concerns about the impact its proposals could have on protecting our most vulnerable citizens.

We support strong encryption, which is used by billions of people every day for services such as banking, commerce, and communications. We also respect promises made by technology companies to protect users’ data. Law abiding citizens have a legitimate expectation that their privacy will be protected. However, as your March blog post recognized, we must ensure that technology companies protect their users and others affected by their users’ online activities. Security enhancements to the virtual world should not make us more vulnerable in the physical world. We must find a way to balance the need to secure data with public safety and the need for law enforcement to access the information they need to safeguard the public, investigate crimes, and prevent future criminal activity. Not doing so hinders our law enforcement agencies’ ability to stop criminals and abusers in their tracks.

Companies should not deliberately design their systems to preclude any form of access to content, even for preventing or investigating the most serious crimes. This puts our citizens and societies at risk by severely eroding a company’s ability to detect and respond to illegal content and activity, such as child sexual exploitation and abuse, terrorism, and foreign adversaries’ attempts to undermine democratic values and institutions, preventing the prosecution of offenders and safeguarding of victims. It also impedes law enforcement’s ability to investigate these and other serious crimes. Risks to public safety from Facebook’s proposals are exacerbated in the context of a single platform that would combine inaccessible messaging services with open profiles, providing unique routes for prospective offenders to identify and groom our children.

Facebook currently undertakes significant work to identify and tackle the most serious illegal content and activity by enforcing your community standards. In 2018, Facebook made 16.8 million reports to the US National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) – more than 90% of the 18.4 million total reports that year. As well as child abuse imagery, these referrals include more than 8,000 reports related to attempts by offenders to meet children online and groom or entice them into sharing indecent imagery or meeting in real life. The UK National Crime Agency (NCA) estimates that, last year, NCMEC reporting from Facebook will have resulted in more than 2,500 arrests by UK law enforcement and almost 3,000 children safeguarded in the UK. Your transparency reports show that Facebook also acted against 26 million pieces of terrorist content between October 2017 and March 2019. More than 99% of the content Facebook takes action against – both for child sexual exploitation and terrorism – is identified by your safety systems, rather than by reports from users.

While these statistics are remarkable, mere numbers cannot capture the significance of the harm to children. To take one example, Facebook sent a priority report to NCMEC, having identified a child who had sent self-produced child sexual abuse material to an adult male. Facebook located multiple chats between the two that indicated historical and ongoing sexual abuse. When investigators were able to locate and interview the child, she reported that the adult had sexually abused her hundreds of times over the course of four years, starting when she was 11. He also regularly demanded that she send him sexually explicit imagery of herself. The offender, who had held a position of trust with the child, was sentenced to 18 years in prison. Without the information from Facebook, abuse of this girl might be continuing to this day.

Our understanding is that much of this activity, which is critical to protecting children and fighting terrorism, will no longer be possible if Facebook implements its proposals as planned. NCMEC estimates that 70% of Facebook’s reporting – 12 million reports globally – would be lost. This would significantly increase the risk of child sexual exploitation or other serious harms. You have said yourself that “we face an inherent tradeoff because we will never find all of the potential harm we do today when our security systems can see the messages themselves”. While this tradeoff has not been quantified, we are very concerned that the right balance is not being struck, which would make your platform an unsafe space, including for children.

Equally important to Facebook’s own work to act against illegal activity, law enforcement rely on obtaining the content of communications, under appropriate legal authorisation, to save lives, enable criminals to be brought to justice, and exonerate the innocent.

We therefore call on Facebook and other companies to take the following steps:

· Embed the safety of the public in system designs, thereby enabling you to continue to act against illegal content effectively with no reduction to safety, and facilitating the prosecution of offenders and safeguarding of victims;
· Enable law enforcement to obtain lawful access to content in a readable and usable format;

· Engage in consultation with governments to facilitate this in a way that is substantive and genuinely influences your design decisions; and

· Not implement the proposed changes until you can ensure that the systems you would apply to maintain the safety of your users are fully tested and operational.

We are committed to working with you to focus on reasonable proposals that will allow Facebook and our governments to protect your users and the public, while protecting their privacy. Our technical experts are confident that we can do so while defending cyber security and supporting technological innovation. We will take an open and balanced approach in line with the joint statement of principles signed by the governments of the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada in August 2018[1] and the subsequent communique agreed in July this year[2].

As you have recognised, it is critical to get this right for the future of the internet. Children’s safety and law enforcement’s ability to bring criminals to justice must not be the ultimate cost of Facebook taking forward these proposals.


Yours sincerely,


Rt Hon Priti Patel MP
United Kingdom Secretary of State for the Home Department

William P. Barr
United States Attorney General

Kevin K. McAleenan
United States Secretary of Homeland Security (Acting)

Hon Peter Dutton MP
Australian Minister for Home Affairs
 

Asshat wormie

2023 Asshat Award Winner
<Gold Donor>
16,820
30,963
I made the assumption it was a true quote. That's fair. But with like 5 seconds of effort I found it. Was written in 2019 apparently.

Actual letter:

4 October 2019


Dear Mr. Zuckerberg,

OPEN LETTER: FACEBOOK’S “PRIVACY FIRST” PROPOSALS

We are writing to request that Facebook does not proceed with its plan to implement end-to-end encryption across its messaging services without ensuring that there is no reduction to user safety and without including a means for lawful access to the content of communications to protect our citizens.

In your post of 6 March 2019, “A Privacy-Focused Vision for Social Networking,” you acknowledged that “there are real safety concerns to address before we can implement end-to-end encryption across all our messaging services.” You stated that “we have a responsibility to work with law enforcement and to help prevent” the use of Facebook for things like child sexual exploitation, terrorism, and extortion. We welcome this commitment to consultation. As you know, our governments have engaged with Facebook on this issue, and some of us have written to you to express our views. Unfortunately, Facebook has not committed to address our serious concerns about the impact its proposals could have on protecting our most vulnerable citizens.

We support strong encryption, which is used by billions of people every day for services such as banking, commerce, and communications. We also respect promises made by technology companies to protect users’ data. Law abiding citizens have a legitimate expectation that their privacy will be protected. However, as your March blog post recognized, we must ensure that technology companies protect their users and others affected by their users’ online activities. Security enhancements to the virtual world should not make us more vulnerable in the physical world. We must find a way to balance the need to secure data with public safety and the need for law enforcement to access the information they need to safeguard the public, investigate crimes, and prevent future criminal activity. Not doing so hinders our law enforcement agencies’ ability to stop criminals and abusers in their tracks.

Companies should not deliberately design their systems to preclude any form of access to content, even for preventing or investigating the most serious crimes. This puts our citizens and societies at risk by severely eroding a company’s ability to detect and respond to illegal content and activity, such as child sexual exploitation and abuse, terrorism, and foreign adversaries’ attempts to undermine democratic values and institutions, preventing the prosecution of offenders and safeguarding of victims. It also impedes law enforcement’s ability to investigate these and other serious crimes. Risks to public safety from Facebook’s proposals are exacerbated in the context of a single platform that would combine inaccessible messaging services with open profiles, providing unique routes for prospective offenders to identify and groom our children.

Facebook currently undertakes significant work to identify and tackle the most serious illegal content and activity by enforcing your community standards. In 2018, Facebook made 16.8 million reports to the US National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) – more than 90% of the 18.4 million total reports that year. As well as child abuse imagery, these referrals include more than 8,000 reports related to attempts by offenders to meet children online and groom or entice them into sharing indecent imagery or meeting in real life. The UK National Crime Agency (NCA) estimates that, last year, NCMEC reporting from Facebook will have resulted in more than 2,500 arrests by UK law enforcement and almost 3,000 children safeguarded in the UK. Your transparency reports show that Facebook also acted against 26 million pieces of terrorist content between October 2017 and March 2019. More than 99% of the content Facebook takes action against – both for child sexual exploitation and terrorism – is identified by your safety systems, rather than by reports from users.

While these statistics are remarkable, mere numbers cannot capture the significance of the harm to children. To take one example, Facebook sent a priority report to NCMEC, having identified a child who had sent self-produced child sexual abuse material to an adult male. Facebook located multiple chats between the two that indicated historical and ongoing sexual abuse. When investigators were able to locate and interview the child, she reported that the adult had sexually abused her hundreds of times over the course of four years, starting when she was 11. He also regularly demanded that she send him sexually explicit imagery of herself. The offender, who had held a position of trust with the child, was sentenced to 18 years in prison. Without the information from Facebook, abuse of this girl might be continuing to this day.

Our understanding is that much of this activity, which is critical to protecting children and fighting terrorism, will no longer be possible if Facebook implements its proposals as planned. NCMEC estimates that 70% of Facebook’s reporting – 12 million reports globally – would be lost. This would significantly increase the risk of child sexual exploitation or other serious harms. You have said yourself that “we face an inherent tradeoff because we will never find all of the potential harm we do today when our security systems can see the messages themselves”. While this tradeoff has not been quantified, we are very concerned that the right balance is not being struck, which would make your platform an unsafe space, including for children.

Equally important to Facebook’s own work to act against illegal activity, law enforcement rely on obtaining the content of communications, under appropriate legal authorisation, to save lives, enable criminals to be brought to justice, and exonerate the innocent.

We therefore call on Facebook and other companies to take the following steps:

· Embed the safety of the public in system designs, thereby enabling you to continue to act against illegal content effectively with no reduction to safety, and facilitating the prosecution of offenders and safeguarding of victims;
· Enable law enforcement to obtain lawful access to content in a readable and usable format;

· Engage in consultation with governments to facilitate this in a way that is substantive and genuinely influences your design decisions; and

· Not implement the proposed changes until you can ensure that the systems you would apply to maintain the safety of your users are fully tested and operational.

We are committed to working with you to focus on reasonable proposals that will allow Facebook and our governments to protect your users and the public, while protecting their privacy. Our technical experts are confident that we can do so while defending cyber security and supporting technological innovation. We will take an open and balanced approach in line with the joint statement of principles signed by the governments of the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada in August 2018[1] and the subsequent communique agreed in July this year[2].

As you have recognised, it is critical to get this right for the future of the internet. Children’s safety and law enforcement’s ability to bring criminals to justice must not be the ultimate cost of Facebook taking forward these proposals.


Yours sincerely,


Rt Hon Priti Patel MP
United Kingdom Secretary of State for the Home Department

William P. Barr
United States Attorney General

Kevin K. McAleenan
United States Secretary of Homeland Security (Acting)

Hon Peter Dutton MP
Australian Minister for Home Affairs
I was talking more about the IG dismissal comments. The whole thing reeks of partisan bullshit so I feel comfortable dismissing the conclusions.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: 1 users

Torrid

Molten Core Raider
926
611
The Feds have been trying to do that for decades. They launched a criminal investigation of the author of PGP in the early 90s for simply publishing open source code and a bill to ban encrypted communications failed in congress around the same time.

Aside from grievous privacy violations, the issue is that is the internet needs end to end encryption to work; at least if you go online shopping or banking or VPN etc. What do you think TLS/SSL is? If you design protocols to have backdoors, then they will certainly be found and exploited by bad actors. (granted the Feds are bad actors as far as many are concerned) It's impossible to make a protocol such that the only third parties that can snoop are the law enforcement agencies. Either you have end to end encryption or you don't have useful encryption.

I suppose the fear is that Trump and his congress are too stupid to understand this and they pass something that causes chaos
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

Flobee

Vyemm Raider
2,605
2,996
I found this thread very interesting regarding USD inflation while being the reserve currency:


Specifically these two charts

Gold/SPY - SPY down 24% since fall 2018
1591889387564.png


BTC/SPY - SPY down 89% vs BTC in last 4 years, down 26% in just 2020
1591889417021.png

If I understand this correctly it shows that the value of Gold/BTC has held steady or increased in value against the S&P 500 in the same period of time that the S&P 500 is gaining in value against the USD. This would suggest in my mind the the market recovery is indicative of a decrease in USD value more than it is an increase is asset value. Happy to be corrected as I'm still trying to learn about these things.

" When people say the market is up, they might want to start thinking about Ray's important notes. Is it up in nominal fiat terms or in buying power terms?"
 

Flobee

Vyemm Raider
2,605
2,996
Paypal and Venmo planning to start selling crypto soon. Can confirm by checking Paypal's hiring channels. Paypal may end up being the largest exchange on the planet.


EDIT: Read a bit more. Paypal is trying to catch up to CashApp who's been selling BTC for a while. Apparently CashApp made $306 Million in BTC revenue in Q1 this year.

 
Last edited:

Flobee

Vyemm Raider
2,605
2,996
There are some very lucrative lending opportunities right now with DeFi (decentralized finance) within the crypto world. These rates will inevitably go down but you aren't going to see these kinds of opportunities elsewhere. I wouldn't suggest using anything more than play money right now as the tech is still early, but you can't really fuck with 27.59% APY on a passive investment where you maintain custody of the asset you're lending.


1592923788317.png
 

Break

Silver Baronet of the Realm
4,253
11,773
Seems like BTC has been unusually stable lately, hovering very close to $9000 now since May.
 

Sanrith Descartes

Veteran of a thousand threadban wars
<Aristocrat╭ರ_•́>
41,458
107,509
Twitter admin got hacked. Hacker used the account to hack high profile accounts and start a bitcoin scam.. good times.



 
  • 3Worf
Reactions: 2 users