Is anyone else starting to become a bit worried? mod note in first post

Dades

lifeandtimes wrote: »

Currently to send money internationally you need a bank account that you have to sign up for, provide documentation of identity and deposit funds etc and so does the person who wants to recieve the funds, them the transfer itself can take days, especially over weekends and then there's the cost of the transaction either there and then or in quarterly fees to your bank.

With cryptos there's none of that

I had to provide documentation of identity on a couple of exchanges to even buy XRP, and deposit funds in one of them. Both the exchange and the wallet also take their cut on transactions.

I'm not saying crypto won't be a really handy way of transacting, but it ain't the free lunch people claim it is yet. And until it (or any crypto) cuts out the value swings it cannot be a serious replacement for currency.

grindle

Dades wrote: »

I'm not saying crypto won't be a really handy way of transacting, but it ain't the free lunch people claim it is yet. And until it (or any crypto) cuts out the value swings it cannot be a serious replacement for currency.

If it nears fiat-threatening stages (big big if) it will have reached it because people are transacting with it - not everybody is going to have to go to an exchange to buy it, a lot will have received it from people buying something from them. I've tipped crypto to many newbies who've never owned it on various subreddits and they'll only have to go the exchange route if they want to sell it.

The stabilisation is going to take a long long time to reach.

Bob24

garrettod wrote: »

The industry needs to be doing a lot more to inform the general public of the potential benefits of using cryptos, then start to evidence it for individual consumers, imho.

I think what’s needed it to show widespread practical uses.

JohnnyFlash

Dades wrote: »

So, new people to buy into magic beans and get the graph moving up?

That's a stark reality. As the thread title says, I've become a bit worried, even though I'm only in a bunch of alts now in case of a moonshot.

This.

The December money has dried up. It's gone. There's a huge amount of alt-coins that are out-and-out scams - Tron, Vechain, Walton, Dentacoin etc. Big talk about roadmaps, teams, and advisors, but it was always about getting people to send them ethereum so they could liquidate as soon as possible. That Litecoin dude was very clever.

There might well be companies exploring the use of blockchain technology, but this ICO thing was always a way of getting people to hand over money for nothing more than a fancy website and the promise of making a fortune. The coins they generated out of thin air gave you absolutely nothing only a chance to speculate during a pump and dump orchestrated on discord or telegram. Ponzi, pyramid, sweepstakes - whatever variation on that works for you.

There's obviously industries where the use of blockchain may become a reality. Banking, insurance, utilities. But even then there's the thinking that it remains a solution looking for a problem. And the Microsoft Azure or IBM hyperledger allows those industries to look at the genuine practicalities of its implementation, without having to wildly speculate on companies who felt an ICO (and HODL, Lambo, Moon) was the way to demonstrate their tech.

It's all going to collapse. Tether printing magical money to keep the price of bitcoin up isn't going to save it.

lifeandtimes

@johnnyflash

Can you provide some evidence that these coins are all scams and have no practice use at all?

Tether at the moment has a big question mark over it but as of last month there was an investigation done to say it may have enough reserve in a puerto Rican bank to back itself up (but as they can't be subpoenaed we can't find out) and yesterday they released 300 million tokens, I mean with all the criticism around them would they really want to be bringing more attention to themselves?

NB: I don't trade with tether as I've no need to too so ive no affiliation

smacl

Dades wrote: »

So, new people to buy into magic beans and get the graph moving up?

That's a stark reality. As the thread title says, I've become a bit worried, even though I'm only in a bunch of alts now in case of a moonshot.

I think this depends very much on the time frame you're looking at. As I see it, one of two things can happen. Firstly block chain disappears as a failed technology. Secondly it becomes established and provides genuine utility and hence value. If the second happens, new money will follow as a matter of course and with it no doubt further bubbles and busts. My guess is that the second will happen and the time frame will be a number of years at which point we'll be looking at new people and new money. Again, just reading tea leaves and a few tech articles, but I think block chain is going to take over physical asset management and can increase the market hugely if transaction costs become tiny. Cheap, fast and easy tracing of food and pharma products, proof of ownership of common goods that get stolen (e.g. phones, tools with serial numbers etc..) The list goes on, but the application for huge, decentralised, secure, open ledger style databases is enormous and goes well beyond payment and the financial arena. Also a guess as to which tech will succeed here, but the one which meets scalability, performance and cost requirements while being open, robust and proven across the widest number of use cases has to be a front runner. Of the current crop, this looks like ETH, and if we see a continuing decline, I for one will be buying back in.

unkel

smacl wrote: »

block chain is going to take over physical asset management and can increase the market hugely if transaction costs become tiny. Cheap, fast and easy tracing of food and pharma products, proof of ownership of common goods that get stolen (e.g. phones, tools with serial numbers etc..)

Good ideas. I'm off to work on some ICOs :pac:

garrettod

Bob24 wrote: »

I think what’s needed it to show widespread practical uses.

Agreed, and said much the same myself a few posts earlier.

I think part of the problem is that the businesses behind the crypto currencies have had it far to easy, with regards to accessing funds for investment. They have a concept, produce a white paper and a website, mention that they are having an ICO and the cash just rolls straight in..... they've not had to work particularly hard to convince and show people how good their product or service is etc. This probably needs to change, to get them back to showing people what they can do, not just telling potential investors about their dreams. Is it any wonder that there are more and more comparisons to the DotCom Bubble ?

lifeandtimes

garrettod wrote: »

Agreed, and said much the same myself a few posts earlier.

I think part of the problem is that the businesses behind the crypto currencies have had it far to easy, with regards to accessing funds for investment. They have a concept, produce a white paper and a website, mention that they are having an ICO and the cash just rolls straight in..... they've not had to work particularly hard to convince and show people how good their product or service is etc. This probably needs to change, to get them back to showing people what they can do, not just telling potential investors about their dreams. Is it any wonder that there are more and more comparisons to the DotCom Bubble ?

Very fair point.

As with most investment opportunities, prospective investors are shown the product working and what it can bring, icos dont really do that which is why they have been banned from social media etc, not because they are all dubious scams but because people can be really stupid and just put all their money into something with out reading up on it anbd in turn can then be scammed

Plenty of coins have real world potential, im involved in one that is starting to be used for minor transactions around the world in coffee shops, parking meters etc. Its replacing fiat as there is no fee involved not matter how small the transaction, you just use your phone to scan the qr code and boom the transaction is complete

lifeandtimes

https://news.sky.com/story/world-markets-sink-on-fears-of-trump-trade-war-11300262

Anyone else see this as possibly good for cryptos? I mean stocks are all about money flow, traders always need to make their money make them money and most people don’t know how to short or don’t want to bother so they’d more than likely jump back into the crypto market to wait out wall street which will ignite FOMO again.

Just a thought, would like to hear other opinions

asteroids over berlin

Oh dear god i am worried! More than half of my portfolio wiped out. lol - Not!. Expecting things to pick up pretty soon now in April, beginning of a bull run. The news is slowly turning more positive. Huge year for crypto - more so the latter 1/3 of the year but things should ramp up soon. Hodl and relax guys

* not financial advice!

Chancer3001

January - it's Chinese New year killing us be fine soon

February - clif high says end of Feb for bull run

March - oh sh1t ...maybe uh April will have it ? Or the end of the year ?

Dades

January: HODL!

March: Hodl...

March: hodl?

April: *looks down at empty hands*

lifeandtimes

Dades wrote: »

January: HODL!

March: Hodl...

March: hodl?

April: *looks down at empty hands*

May: Oh look, a little rise...

June: Hey this is looking good

July: Wow im better off than i was before, Time for a new funny hat

August: Hell yeah i can buy that car

September: "Sure id like to buy a new house"

October: "Sold for 100 million to the man with the funny hat"

annie.t

interesting news
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-23/the-world-s-biggest-cryptocurrency-exchange-is-moving-to-malta

Binance will soon start a “fiat-to-crypto exchange” on the European island nation, and is close to securing a deal with local banks that can provide access to deposits and withdrawals

banie01

I finally got around to pulling my Fiat deposits and crypto buys and sells together in a spreadsheet.
I had a handle on my total investment, but never got around to drilling down into my fundamentals.
So now I have my holdings broken out into Coins Held, Total Fiat, Average cost per coin.
It gives a better overview of where my break even/profit point is for coins with multiple buys.
I know its something i should have done months ago, but had a lot on until this week.
My total stake is currently at @breakeven so I am hopeful for the future.

That said, the markets do have me concerned. I read an article recently outlining that every Dollar invested in crypto, adds $50 to the market cap!
Given that USDT has added $2.3bln in liquidity to the markets by the articles logic it could account for up to 3rd of the actual current market cap!
Now I don't buy the extrapolation behind the thesis in the article, and now I cant even find the article itself.
But be it FUD or just poor maths, it does point to the impact the USDT issue will have unless it is resolved at some point.

Dades

lifeandtimes wrote: »

October: "Sold for 100 million to the man with the funny hat"

© 2017

But here's hoping for another goldrush!

Anthracite

lifeandtimes wrote: »

https://news.sky.com/story/world-markets-sink-on-fears-of-trump-trade-war-11300262

Anyone else see this as possibly good for cryptos? I mean stocks are all about money flow

Stocks are about owning a stake in a business that generates profit for shareholders.

smacl

Anthracite wrote: »

Stocks are about owning a stake in a business that generates profit for shareholders.

I'd say that's shares more so than stocks. Stocks tend to refer to a portfolio of minor shareholdings in a range of companies and are something of a punt much like cryptos, albeit lower risk / return, where their value follows market trends.

ballyharpat

smacl wrote: »

I'd say that's shares more so than stocks. Stocks tend to refer to a portfolio of minor shareholdings in a range of companies and are something of a punt much like cryptos, albeit lower risk / return, where their value follows market trends.

Taken from your link "Bottom line, stocks and shares are the same thing. The minor distinction between stocks and shares is usually overlooked, and it has more to do with syntax than financial or legal accuracy."

I buy stocks of a company that is either formed or has a business model and a plan for it, I have had stocks thet rose ten fold, and some that pay dividends, as an investor, I cannot see where there is a correlation between stocks and Cryptocurrency. Some people are traders and may not 'invest' in a company, but would be closer to speculation, than investing. Of course, with all investments, their value may go up or down, but I don't buy 'penny stocks', which would be closer to crypto than Apple, I could not handle the volatility, or the way that even if a stock is doing very well that it's value would go down, while there have been companies like Enron etc, there are blue chip companies like KO/Coca Cola etc, that are a so;id investment, without a lot of volatility.

To each their own, but that's my idea of investing, and it's done well for me over the last 13/15 years.

smacl

ballyharpat wrote: »

I buy stocks of a company that is either formed or has a business model and a plan for it, I have had stocks thet rose ten fold, and some that pay dividends, as an investor, I cannot see where there is a correlation between stocks and Cryptocurrency. Some people are traders and may not 'invest' in a company, but would be closer to speculation, than investing. Of course, with all investments, their value may go up or down, but I don't buy 'penny stocks', which would be closer to crypto than Apple, I could not handle the volatility, or the way that even if a stock is doing very well that it's value would go down, while there have been companies like Enron etc, there are blue chip companies like KO/Coca Cola etc, that are a so;id investment, without a lot of volatility.

You're making a gamble of sorts either way based on your belief that something you buy today will increase in value over time rather than lose value. The greater the risk, the greater the potential return. Cryptos are highly volatile at present, and potential gains or losses are hence large. As block chain technology matures and gains broader acceptance, the volatility will decrease as will the large gains and losses. Crypto is actually very like Apple, but at a time when Wozniak and Jobs were still in the shed. Most small tech companies don't make it, but where would you be now if you'd put some money into Apple when they were looking to get the Apple ][ onto the shelves or when everyone was laughing at the Apple Lisa (which went on to become the Mac). Crypto doesn't give you ownership the way shares do, and no doubt 90% of the current ventures will fail, but I'd imagine there will be some serious gains in the remainder.

To each their own, but that's my idea of investing, and it's done well for me over the last 13/15 years.

Good for you. I'm a majority shareholder in my own company and was a 50% shareholder in another which was sold for decent money some years back. Never got into stocks, but find the crypto space fascinating and have taken a punt on that basis. As you say, each to their own.

el diablo

Chancer3001 wrote: »

January - it's Chinese New year killing us be fine soon

February - clif high says end of Feb for bull run

March - oh sh1t ...maybe uh April will have it ? Or the end of the year ?

Cliff High and his "webbot" are ridiculous. Hopefully nobody here takes him seriously.

Bob24

Bitcoin YTD ... the downwards trend seems to be settling in.

ZeroThreat

Bob24 wrote: »

Bitcoin YTD ... the downwards trend seems to be settling in.

I guess the cryptobubble (may as well call it the bitcoin bubble due to its dominance) is bursting, 2017 was just an anomaly before crytpos passing as a fad just like dotcom bubble.

Matt Simis

ZeroThreat wrote: »

I guess the cryptobubble (may as well call it the bitcoin bubble due to its dominance) is bursting, 2017 was just an anomaly before crytpos passing as a fad just like dotcom bubble.

A less click baity way of saying the same thing: we are about to roll out of bull**** phase of sticking ".com" on anything and into births of eBay, Amazon, PayPal etc mega corps.

Sounds good.

lifeandtimes

ZeroThreat wrote: »

I guess the cryptobubble (may as well call it the bitcoin bubble due to its dominance) is bursting, 2017 was just an anomaly before crytpos passing as a fad just like dotcom bubble.

A 3 month graph (I'm assuming that's what that graph is) doesn't constitute a bubble bursting.

Bear markets can last as long as they want, however this "bubble" has been going for nearly 10 years and is based of technology that has real world and everyday use. The facts are crypto is better for people as currency than real cash, no fees, quicker transactions, no limits, complete control of your finances and when people start to see that it will start to take over

h0neybadger

ZeroThreat wrote: »

I guess the cryptobubble (may as well call it the bitcoin bubble due to its dominance) is bursting, 2017 was just an anomaly before crytpos passing as a fad just like dotcom bubble.

Hopefully your attendance in this forum passes as a fad too. :pac:

Bob24

Matt Simis wrote: »

A less click baity way of saying the same thing: we are about to roll out of bull**** phase of sticking ".com" on anything and into births of eBay, Amazon, PayPal etc mega corps.

Sounds good.

I am fairly confident the technologies behind those coins will find practical and commercial uses over time. But on the other hand 1) very few of today's coins will survive and it is very hard to know which ones - even bitcoin isn't 100% safe 2) a coin becoming very successful, as in it is widely used and trusted to store and exchange wealth, doesn't mean its value will skyrocket as the socks of a successful company would. On the contrary to be a credible fiat replacement it would need the ability to maintain price stability.

grindle

Bob24 wrote: »

I am fairly confident the technologies behind those coins will find practical and commercial uses over time. But on the other hand 1) very few of today's coins will survive and it is very hard to know which ones - even bitcoin isn't 100% safe 2) a coin becoming very successful, as in it is widely used and trusted to store and exchange wealth, doesn't mean its value will skyrocket as the socks of a successful company would. On the contrary to be a credible fiat replacement it would need the ability to maintain price stability.

1) True. It's fairly easy to know which ones it shouldn't be. I'd rather not be buying stuff with rare Pepecoins in the future.

2) I'd like to know how this makes sense. If something gains genuine widespread use (and they're not all out to replace fiat but that is the ideal basic use/application of the technology once it's matured) that will mean vast sums of money will be pumped in to the tune of hundreds of billions or possibly trillions of dollars entering the market per year.
Volume, liquidity across the market and price appreciation in the future would dwarf 2017's rise, 2018's crash would be looked back on as yet another cute blip while the market was finding it's feet.
If some project gets even 10% of the way towards replacing fiat it's valuation will hit absurd heights - it's inescapable. Money can't flow in faster than it leaves without an appreciation in value unless it's a stablecoin, people won't have enough of an incentive to push their money into a stablecoin unless the market is crashing - valuations and volatility should stabilise once the amount of money flowing in or out is a tiny wedge in comparison to total cap but that is trillions of dollars away from happening.
What mechanism could cause vast sums to enter the market yet somehow stop price appreciation?

asteroids over berlin

Feeling quite bullish myself, the tide is turning, positive but ever so important bits of positive news are appearing. Whilst i was expecting the bull run to continue into the new year, i myself got carried away.
On this day last year, Bitcoin was just below $1200, today it is just below $8k, yes it hit 20k+, however there has been even bigger dips (not sure i would call it a correction) in the past. I expect Bitcoin to hit new all time highs this year. Patience people, research and study the markets (inclusive of traditional stock markets), it isn't a game, there are serious projects under development which will come to fruition, if you have invested in decent projects, you will do well. Personally i have been selling some of my premium project coins to amass big amounts in other projects, some a little risky but fortunately i am in a position where i can take a position in some projects outside the top 20 i.e. 0x, icon, lisk, qsp, vertcoin, steem, substrat (i want this to succeed) i have recently accumulated more this week.
I have even ignored the markets completely for the last while.
Ignore the fud and never underestimate bitcoin. Hodl

Bob24

grindle wrote: »

2) I'd like to know how this makes sense. If something gains genuine widespread use (and they're not all out to replace fiat but that is the ideal basic use/application of the technology once it's matured) that will mean vast sums of money will be pumped in to the tune of hundreds of billions or possibly trillions of dollars entering the market per year.
[...]
What mechanism could cause vast sums to enter the market yet somehow stop price appreciation?

Creating more coins as more money is put into the ecosystem can easily prevent appreciation - basically “printing” new coins which correspond the the amount of capital coming into the ecosystem.

It is not like let’s say gold whereby there is both limited supply and a fairly high cost to extract more; creating coins basically costs nothing.

It is also different from stocks whereby if you own 10000 euros in shares and the value of the company is multiplied by 100 because it is successfull, you share are automatically worth 10000000 because you still own the same percentage of the company. Coins are not a share of anything so they are not mechanically linked to the value of that thing as company shares would be.

Maintaining some type of price stability is actually probably going to be a requirement for any practical use bar being used as a speculative asset. People and companies don’t like trading with an asset which changes value constantly as it makes it very hard to make plans for the future.

grindle

Bob24 wrote: »

Creating more coins as more money is put into the ecosystem can easily prevent appreciation - basically “printing” new coins which correspond the the amount of capital coming into the ecosystem.

Yeah, for governments or for day-trading a stablecoin will be useful, but I don't understand what incentivises the network. Nodes, miners, stakers, whichever - why would they help securing a network they get no gain from? If there isn't any value to be gained they're just wasting resources and doing so as a favour to the government?

This also requires some best-in-class devs wasting their brains working with/for the government for little reward instead of following their own vision and probably trying to disrupt or dismantle whatever inefficiencies that government has introduced or likely depends on in the sense of corruption.

Wild manipulation of supply at a national or worldwide level by a central entity is something crypto buyer's aren't going to be a fan of, it's basically the system we have now and grants no reward aka incentive for early adoption. We already have the current world's economy (and in the crypto-world Tether) as an indicator of what a shítshow a centralised stablecoin would be. Something like Maker DAI may or may not work, I guess we'll see over time if it's actually beneficial for holders to create the stablecoin.

Maybe some new model gets envisioned, our cash gets tokenised and it gets secured by Ethereum's network or something - I guess we'll see over the coming years and decades what is or isn't possible. There'd have to be some sort of cash amnesty or invalidation of of cash.

Bob24 wrote: »

Maintaining some type of price stability is actually probably going to be a requirement for any practical use bar being used as a speculative asset. People and companies don’t like trading with an asset which changes value constantly as it makes it very hard to make plans for the future.

People can sell into and transact with some (hopefully decentralised and incentivised) stablecoin if the volatility of RandomAssetCoin puts businesses off accepting it - businesses which accept crypto are generally transferring directly to fiat immediately anyway, they're not really exposed to price fluctuations but can get hit with transfer fees which obviously get high when there's limited scaling - a problem which won't exist in a few years for Ethereum's at least. Who knows how Bitcoin's scaling will work or whether or not Lightning or some other sidechain will become used and usable for the general population? Guessing game there.

I dunno - gold still holds wealth & has utility yet it fluctuates, oil holds wealth, has utility and fluctuates - I don't see much of a difference between a good utility token and oil in terms of supply and demand. If it needs to be used, it gets paid for no matter how stupidly expensive it is. Conversely, if there's lowering of demand or risk of oversupply the price drops and it still gets used.

lifeandtimes

https://www.newsbtc.com/2018/03/26/cryptocurrency-guru-sees-bitcoin-going-up-to-400000/#

Interesting read, says it like it is. Confirms bitcoin could crash at any moment but is 75% confident it will hit 20k again and above

GreeBo

lifeandtimes wrote: »

The laws of physics apply to everything

What happened in the world outside of crytpos (regulations, banning, promotion, integration) all have an effect on cryptos.

The fear of panic buying or selling doesn't come from nowhere and as such Newtons 3rd law applies in 1 way or another

Not for Quantum they dont. :rolleyes:

ionapaul

lifeandtimes wrote: »

https://www.newsbtc.com/2018/03/26/cryptocurrency-guru-sees-bitcoin-going-up-to-400000/#

Interesting read, says it like it is. Confirms bitcoin could crash at any moment but is 75% confident it will hit 20k again and above

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Is that article not a bit worthless? Just one guy's option, right?

I'm still up on the Bitcoin I bought in October; bought via an ETF that included a decent % in BTC, which it subsequently reduced. Down on the ETH, NANO and Litecoin I bought in early Jan. Don't think I'm gonna sell though, might as well 'let it ride' and see what happens over the coming year.

smacl

grindle wrote: »

Yeah, for governments or for day-trading a stablecoin will be useful, but I don't understand what incentivises the network. Nodes, miners, stakers, whichever - why would they help securing a network they get no gain from? If there isn't any value to be gained they're just wasting resources and doing so as a favour to the government?

Doesn't tangle attempt to answer that in theory at least, even if the technology is not there yet, where the cost of having transactions processed is processing other transactions. Seems more sensible that dedicating ever increasing resources to mining, which I doubt is sustainable in the long term when crypto really takes off.

Bob24

grindle wrote: »

Yeah, for governments or for day-trading a stablecoin will be useful, but I don't understand what incentivises the network. Nodes, miners, stakers, whichever - why would they help securing a network they get no gain from? If there isn't any value to be gained they're just wasting resources and doing so as a favour to the government?

This also requires some best-in-class devs wasting their brains working with/for the government for little reward instead of following their own vision and probably trying to disrupt or dismantle whatever inefficiencies that government has introduced or likely depends on in the sense of corruption.

Wild manipulation of supply at a national or worldwide level by a central entity is something crypto buyer's aren't going to be a fan of, it's basically the system we have now and grants no reward aka incentive for early adoption. We already have the current world's economy (and in the crypto-world Tether) as an indicator of what a shítshow a centralised stablecoin would be. Something like Maker DAI may or may not work, I guess we'll see over time if it's actually beneficial for holders to create the stablecoin.

You seem to imply the requirement for stability is mostly associated to governments? But companies and individuals also want stability. Also there needs to a practical and economical model for the network to keep working without a requirement for constant capital inflow and fluctuation to be able to reward the nodes otherwise it is not sustainable in the long term.

And I don't understand why do you call coin creation manipulation of supply? As long as there is a clear rule for how things work and it is being enforced/monitored there is no manipulation.
For exemple bitcoins are already being created out of nothing as part of the mining process and no-one sees this as manipulation. There could be other rules which lead to coin creation in other situations.

grindle wrote: »

I dunno - gold still holds wealth & has utility yet it fluctuates, oil holds wealth, has utility and fluctuates - I don't see much of a difference between a good utility token and oil in terms of supply and demand. If it needs to be used, it gets paid for no matter how stupidly expensive it is. Conversely, if there's lowering of demand or risk of oversupply the price drops and it still gets used.

Physically limited supply is one reason why people don't use gold or oil as a currency and one reason for their value (or even more so oil which also happens to be impractical). Cryptocurrencies are different as there is potentially unlimited supply (you can create coins out of thin air as long as the algorithm allows it, whereas no-one can possibly create gold out of thin air in any circumstance).

Pintman Paddy Losty

https://thebitcoin.pub/t/child-abuse-imagery-found-within-bitcoins-blockchain/35590

Researchers from the RWTH Aachen University, Germany found that around 1,600 files were currently stored in bitcoin’s blockchain. Of the files least eight were of sexual content, including one thought to be an image of child abuse and two that contain 274 links to child abuse content, 142 of which link to dark web services.

“Our analysis shows that certain content, eg, illegal pornography, can render the mere possession of a blockchain illegal

Is this something we should be worried about? Could anyone holding a copy of the ledger be an unwitting crypto-paedo?

It's terrible that cryptocurrency still seems to be inexorably linked to drugs, crime and kiddy fiddlers. It's difficult to shake the association.

Although at least Bitcoin seems to be becoming a bit less tainted now that criminals and the child exploitation types seem to be moving exclusively to monero and the likes.

JohnnyFlash

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

https://thebitcoin.pub/t/child-abuse-imagery-found-within-bitcoins-blockchain/35590



Is this something we should be worried about? Could anyone holding a copy of the ledger be an unwitting crypto-paedo?

It's terrible that cryptocurrency still seems to be inexorably linked to drugs, crime and kiddy fiddlers. It's difficult to shake the association.

Although at least Bitcoin seems to be becoming a bit less tainted now that criminals and the child exploitation types seem to be moving exclusively to monero and the likes.

I’ve been studying the crypto space in my spare time for the past few months, Patrick. Fascinating stuff. Some of the ‘scene’ is populated by genuine weirdos who believe that having kiddie porn on the block chain is preferable to government intervention, and that humanity will either come up with a technical solution or self-police. Libertarians they call themselves. Most of the smaller guys just want to make a shed load of money by speculating on magic bean coins. Don’t think they actually think too much about the moral implications of something like this. Some of them don’t appear to think at all!! I’m as thick as two short planks meself, it Jesus, there’s some morons on twitter and reddit and places li,e that.

garrettod

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

...It's terrible that cryptocurrency still seems to be inexorably linked to drugs, crime and kiddy fiddlers. It's difficult to shake the association.....

As long as cryptos are not regulated, they'll continue to be associated with illegal activities imho.

Bob24

garrettod wrote: »

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

...It's terrible that cryptocurrency still seems to be inexorably linked to drugs, crime and kiddy fiddlers. It's difficult to shake the association.....

As long as cryptos are not regulated, they'll continue to be associated with illegal activities imho.

Yes, specifically being anonymous and making it very hard to trace transactions is basically a magnet for illegal activities (to some extend this applies to cash, but cash is less practical for large or remote transactions and while not an expert I assume when you talk large amounts there are some ways to track it).

smacl

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Is this something we should be worried about? Could anyone holding a copy of the ledger be an unwitting crypto-paedo?

Already discussed in detail in another thread, starting from this post onwards. Basically, if you're using the internet and browsing any site with cookies, or use an email client, you're going to inadvertently end up with files which you haven't specifically requested and in extreme cases will be illegal. Nothing particularly unusual with blockchain in this regard, but any blockchain allowing free-form notes will clearly need spam filtering going forward.

Bob24

smacl wrote: »

Already discussed in detail in another thread, starting from this post onwards. Basically, if you're using the internet and browsing any site with cookies, or use an email client, you're going to inadvertently end up with files which you haven't specifically requested and in extreme cases will be illegal. Nothing particularly unusual with blockchain in this regard, but any blockchain allowing free-form notes will clearly need spam filtering going forward.

Now that we know this content is present, I am not sure we can still clame we are downloading it “inadvertently” when we get a copy of the blockchain. And what matters is how a judge would see it which we’re not quite sure about.

For now it is just a curiosity but if this was to become widespread and widely known, someone would have to be held responsable for the presence of that content and I don’t see how how miners who are key to maintaining and updating the blockchain could escape some type of responsibility.

I guess one question is why allowing to store files in a financial ledger, and a simple fix in this case could be to stop allowing that. But this would just fix crypto currencies and the legal question of who is responsible for the stored content is still a valid one for many other blockchain potential applications.

smacl

Bob24 wrote: »

Now that we know this content is present, I am not sure we can still clame we are downloading it “inadvertently” when we get a copy of the blockchain. And what matters is how a judge would see it which we’re not quite sure about.

For now it is just a curiosity but if this was to become widespread and widely known, someone would have to be held responsable for the presence of that content and I don’t see how how miners who are key to maintaining and updating the blockchain could escape some type of responsibility.

I guess one question is why allowing to store files in a financial ledger, and a simple fix in this case could be to stop allowing that. But this would just fix crypto currencies and the legal question of who is responsible for the stored content is still a valid one for many other blockchain potential applications.

I'd expect it comes down to intent, and don't see any possibility of any one of the many millions who have innocuously downloaded the content ever getting into any trouble about it. Now that the flag has been raised, I'd similarly expect the next updates to related blockchain processing software will include functionality to remove existing content and filter new notes for spam. FWIW, this is pretty much what the bulk of Windows updates do; search for and eliminate malicious content. It is part and parcel of modern connected computing.

lifeandtimes

smacl wrote: »

I'd expect it comes down to intent, and don't see any possibility of any one of the many millions who have innocuously downloaded the content ever getting into any trouble about it. Now that the flag has been raised, I'd similarly expect the next updates to related blockchain processing software will include functionality to remove existing content and filter new notes for spam. FWIW, this is pretty much what the bulk of Windows updates do; search for and eliminate malicious content. It is part and parcel of modern connected computing.

Pretty much this, it will be removed soon enough one way or another.

Its just another story to try and spin crypto and the block chain as a whole as something sinister and illegal but it will be sorted out

Dohnjoe

grindle wrote: »

Wild manipulation of supply at a national or worldwide level by a central entity is something crypto buyer's aren't going to be a fan of, it's basically the system we have now and grants no reward aka incentive for early adoption. We already have the current world's economy (and in the crypto-world Tether) as an indicator of what a shítshow a centralised stablecoin would be. Something like Maker DAI may or may not work, I guess we'll see over time if it's actually beneficial for holders to create the stablecoin.

Wild manipulation exists on the level of the crypto from the very start - people minting their own coins, there are thousands, artificial supply caps, forks, etc

A stable coin like DAI is a start, but there's little interest in the crypto community for anything stable (apart from a trading POV) because most of crypto is about speculative gains not stable usage

Dohnjoe

Most of my telegram, whatsapp crypto groups have gone stony silent

All this exciting tech and poof - at the end of the day it's all about the money

Dades

Dohnjoe wrote: »

A stable coin like DAI is a start, but there's little interest in the crypto community for anything stable (apart from a trading POV) because most of crypto is about speculative gains not stable usage

There's little interest in people putting any money into crypto without the promise of gains. People aren't buying crypto because they're excited about decentralisation or because they want to send instant money to their cousin in Australia.

They buy crypto because some guy in work apparently got rich because he bought Bitcoin last year (except he hodled and that's why he's still in work...)

Autochange

Pick any large company in the world. Google it and add blockchain. They are all interested and exploring using blockchain technology in one form or another. Companies are opening offices for the sole purpose of blockchain technology use and development. Deloitte emea in Dublin for example.

The other 3 of the big 4 financial giants have also publicly announced blockchain development.
Yahoo tried to buy a Japanese crypto exchange.

Do they need cryptocurrency ? Not necessarily.
IBMs Fabric does not require tokens to operate to use one example.
IBM are also developing micro sized tracking chips similar to vechains business plan.

Anthracite

Autochange wrote: »

Do they need cryptocurrency ? Not necessarily.
IBMs Fabric does not require tokens to operate to use one example.
IBM are also developing micro sized tracking chips similar to vechains business plan.

Further to this, if a company actually has a valuable product to sell, why would they not simply create their own currency to use it?