[OWL WATCH] Waiting for "IOTA TIME" 20; Hans's re-defined directions for DLT
Disclaimer: This is my editing, so there could be some misunderstandings... -------------------------------------------- wellwho오늘 오후 4:50 u/BenRoyce****how far is society2 from having something clickable powered by IOTA? Ben Royce오늘 오후 4:51 demo of basic tech late sep/ early oct. MVP early 2021 --------------------------------------------------- HusQy Colored coins are the most misunderstood upcoming feature of the IOTA protocol. A lot of people see them just as a competitor to ERC-20 tokens on ETH and therefore a way of tokenizing things on IOTA, but they are much more important because they enable "consensus on data". Bob All this stuff already works on neblio but decentralized and scaling to 3500 tps HusQy Neblio has 8 mb blocks with 30 seconds blocktime.This is a throughput of 8 mb / 30 seconds = 267 kb per second.Transactions are 401+ bytes which means that throughput is 267 kb / 401 bytes = 665 TPS. IOTA is faster, feeless and will get even faster with the next update ... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- HusQy Which DLT would be more secure? One that is collaboratively validated by the economic actors of the world (coporations, companies, foundations, states, people) or one that is validated by an anonymous group of wealthy crypto holders? HusQy The problem with current DLTs is that we use protection mechanisms like Proof of Work and Proof of Stake that are inherently hard to shard. The more shards you have, the more you have to distribute your hashing power and your stake and the less secure the system becomes. HusQy Real world identities (i.e. all the big economic actors) however could shard into as many shards as necessary without making the system less secure. Todays DLTs waste trust in the same way as PoW wastes energy. HusQy Is a secure money worth anything if you can't trust the economic actors that you would buy stuff from? If you buy a car from Volkswagen and they just beat you up and throw you out of the shop after you payed then a secure money won't be useful either :P HusQy **I believe that if you want to make DLT work and be successful then we need to ultimately incorporate things like trust in entities into the technology.**Examples likes wirecard show that trusting a single company is problematic buttrusting the economy as a whole should be at ... **... least as secure as todays DLTs.**And as soon as you add sharding it will be orders of magnitude more secure.DLT has failed to deliver because people have tried to build a system in vacuum that completely ignores things that already exist and that you can leverage on. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HusQy Blockchain is a bit like people sitting in a room, trying to communicate through BINGO sheets. While they talk, they write down some of the things that have been said and as soon as one screams BINGO! he hands around his sheet to inform everybody about what has been said. HusQy If you think that this is the most efficient form of communication for people sitting in the same room and the answer to scalability is to make bigger BINGO sheets or to allow people to solve the puzzle faster then you will most probably never understand what IOTA is working on. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HusQy **Blockchain does not work with too many equally weighted validators.****If 400 validators produce a validating statement (block) at the same time then only one can survive as part of a longest chain.**IOTA is all about collaborative validation. **Another problem of blockchain is that every transaction gets sent twice through the network. Once from the nodes to the miners and a 2nd time from the miners as part of a block.**Blockchain will therefore always only be able to use 50% of the network throughput. And****the last problem is that you can not arbitrarily decrease the time between blocks as it breaks down if the time between blocks gets smaller than the average network delay. The idle time between blocks is precious time that could be used for processing transactions. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- HusQy I am not talking about a system with a fixed number of validators but one that is completely open and permissionless where any new company can just spin up a node and take part in the network. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ HusQy Proof of Work and Proof of Stake are both centralizing sybil-protection mechanism. I don't think that Satoshi wanted 14 mining pools to run the network. And "economic clustering" was always the "end game" of IOTA. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- HusQy **Using Proof of Stake is not trustless. Proof of Stake means you trust the richest people and hope that they approve your transactions. The rich are getting richer (through your fees) and you are getting more and more dependant on them.**Is that your vision of the future? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- HusQy Please read again exactly what I wrote. I have not spoken of introducing governance by large companies, nor have I said that IOTA should be permissioned. We aim for a network with millions or even billions of nodes. HusQy That can't work at all with a permissioned ledger - who should then drop off all these devices or authorize them to participate in the network? My key message was the following: Proof of Work and Proof of Stake will always be if you split them up via sharding ... HusQy ... less secure because you simply need fewer coins or less hash power to have the majority of the votes in a shard. This is not the case with trust in society and the economy. When all companies in the world jointly secure a DLT ... HusQy ... then these companies could install any number of servers in any number of shards without compromising security, because "trust" does not become less just because they operate several servers. First of all, that is a fact and nothing else. HusQy Proof of Work and Proof of Stake are contrary to the assumption of many not "trustless" but follow the maxim: "In the greed of miners we trust!" The basic assumption that the miners do not destroy the system that generates income for them is fundamental here for the ... HusQy ... security of every DLT. I think a similar assumption would still be correct for the economy as a whole: The companies of the world (and not just the big ones) would not destroy the system with which their customers pay them. In this respect, a system would be ... HusQy ... which is validated by society and the economy as a whole probably just as "safely" as a system which is validated by a few anonymous miners. Why a small elite of miners should be better validators than any human and ... HusQy ... To be honest, companies in this world do not open up to me. As already written in my other thread, safe money does not bring you anything if you have to assume that Volkswagen will beat you up and throw you out of the store after you ... HusQy ... paid for a car. The thoughts I discussed say nothing about the immediate future of IOTA (we use for Coordicide mana) but rather speak of a world where DLT has already become an integral part of our lives and we ... HusQy ... a corresponding number of companies, non-profit organizations and people have used DLT and where such a system could be implemented. The point here is not to create a governance solution that in any way influences the development of technology ... HusQy ... or have to give nodes their OK first, but about developing a system that enables people to freely choose the validators they trust. For example, you can also declare your grandma to be a validator when you install your node or your ... HusQy ... local supermarket. Economic relationships in the real world usually form a close-knit network and it doesn't really matter who you follow as long as the majority is honest. I also don't understand your criticism of censorship, because something like that in IOTA ... HusQy ... is almost impossible. Each transaction confirms two other transactions which is growing exponentially. If someone wanted to ignore a transaction, he would have to ignore an exponential number of other transactions after a very short time. In contrast to blockchain ... HusQy ... validators in IOTA do not decide what is included in the ledger, but only decide which of several double spends should be confirmed. Honest transactions are confirmed simply by having other transactions reference them ... HusQy ... and the "validators" are not even asked. As for the "dust problem", this is indeed something that is a bigger problem for IOTA than for other DLTs because we have no fees, but it is also not an unsolvable problem. Bitcoin initially has a ... HusQy Solved similar problem by declaring outputs with a minimum amount of 5430 satoshis as invalid (github.com/Bitcoin/Bitcoi…). A similar solution where an address must contain a minimum amount is also conceivable for IOTA and we are discussing ... HusQy ... several possibilities (including compressing dust using cryptographic methods). Contrary to your assumption, checking such a minimum amount is not slow but just as fast as checking a normal transaction. And mine ... HusQy ... In my opinion this is no problem at all for IOTA's use case. The important thing is that you can send small amounts, but after IOTA is feeless it is also okay to expect the recipients to regularly send their payments on a ... HusQy ... merge address. The wallets already do this automatically (sweeping) and for machines it is no problem to automate this process. So far this was not a problem because the TPS were limited but with the increased TPS throughput of ... HusQy ... Chrysalis it becomes relevant and appropriate solutions are discussed and then implemented accordingly. I think that was the most important thing first and if you have further questions just write :) HusQy And to be very clear! I really appreciate you and your questions and don't see this as an attack at all! People who see such questions as inappropriate criticism should really ask whether they are still objective. I have little time at the moment because ... HusQy ... my girlfriend is on tour and has to take care of our daughter, but as soon as she is back we can discuss these things in a video. I think that the concept of including the "real world" in the concepts of DLT is really exciting and ... HusQy ... that would certainly be exciting to discuss in a joint video. But again, that's more of a vision than a specific plan for the immediate future. This would not work with blockchain anyway but IOTA would be compatible so why not think about such things. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- HusQy All good my big one :P But actually not that much has changed. There has always been the concept of "economic clustering" which is basically based on similar ideas. We are just now able to implement things like this for the first time. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HusQy Exactly. It would mean that addresses "cost" something but I would rather pay a few cents than fees for each transaction. And you can "take" this minimum amount with you every time you change to a new address. HusQy All good my big one :P But actually not that much has changed. There has always been the concept of "economic clustering" which is basically based on similar ideas. We are just now able to implement things like this for the first time. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Relax오늘 오전 1:17 Btw. Hans (sorry for interrupting this convo) but what make people say that IOTA is going the permissioned way because of your latest tweets? I don't get why some people are now forecasting that... Is it because of missing specs or do they just don't get the whole idea? Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 1:20 its bullshitu/Relaxanidentity based system would still be open and permissionless where everybody can choose the actors that they deem trustworthy themselves but thats anyway just sth that would be applicable with more adoption [오전 1:20] for now we use mana as a predecessor to an actual reputation system Sissors오늘 오전 1:31 If everybody has to choose actors they deem trustworthy, is it still permissionless? Probably will become a bit a semantic discussion, but still Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 1:34 Of course its permissionless you can follow your grandma if you want to :p Sissors오늘 오전 1:36 Well sure you can, but you will need to follow something which has a majority of the voting power in the network. Nice that you follow your grandma, but if others dont, her opinion (or well her nodes opinion) is completely irrelevant Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 1:37 You would ideally follow the people that are trustworthy rather than your local drug dealers yeah Sissors오늘 오전 1:38 And tbh, sure if you do it like that is easy. If you just make the users responsible for only connection to trustworthy nodes Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 1:38 And if your grandma follows her supermarket and some other people she deems trustworthy then thats fine as well [오전 1:38] + you dont have just 1 actor that you follow Sissors오늘 오전 1:38 No, you got a large list, since yo uwant to follow those which actually matter. So you jsut download a standard list from the internet Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 1:39 You can do that [오전 1:39] Is bitcoin permissionless? Should we both try to become miners? [오전 1:41] I mean miners that actually matter and not find a block every 10 trillion years 📷 [오전 1:42] If you would want to become a validator then you would need to build up trust among other people - but anybody can still run a node and issue transactions unlike in hashgraph where you are not able to run your own nodes(수정됨) [오전 1:48] Proof of Stake is also not trustless - it just has a builtin mechanism that downloads the trusted people from the blockchain itself (the richest dudes) Sissors오늘 오전 1:52 I think most agree it would be perfect if every person had one vote. Which is pr oblematic to implement of course. But I really wonder if the solution is to just let users decide who to trust. At the very least I expect a quite centralized network Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 1:53 of course even a trust based system would to a certain degree be centralized as not every person is equally trustworthy as for example a big cooperation [오전 1:53] but I think its gonna be less centralized than PoS or PoW [오전 1:53] but anyway its sth for "after coordicide" [오전 1:54] there are not enough trusted entities that are using DLT, yet to make such a system work reasonably well [오전 1:54] I think the reason why blockchain has not really started to look into these kind of concepts is because blockchain doesnt work with too many equally weighted validators [오전 1:56] I believe that DLT is only going to take over the world if it is actually "better" than existing systems and with better I mean cheaper, more secure and faster and PoS and PoW will have a very hard time to deliver that [오전 1:56] especially if you consider that its not only going to settle value transfers Relax오늘 오전 1:57 I like this clear statements, it makes it really clear that DLT is still in its infancy Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 1:57 currently bank transfers are order of magnitude cheaper than BTC or ETH transactions Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 1:57 and we you think that people will adopt it just because its crypto then I think we are mistaken [오전 1:57] The tech needs to actually solve a problem [오전 1:57] and tbh. currently people use PayPal and other companies to settle their payments [오전 1:58] having a group of the top 500 companies run such a service together is already much better(수정됨) [오전 1:58] especially if its fast and feeless [오전 2:02] and the more people use it, the more decentralized it actually becomes [오전 2:02] because you have more trustworthy entities to choose of Evaldas [IF]오늘 오전 2:08 "in the greed of miners we trust"
I keep hearing "Deflation before massive inflation"
So what can we do about it? Any ideas are welcome. It has a lot of "what if's"... It depends how tax and law play out with it.Historically speaking:
Commodities and things people use every day become expensive,
Luxury goods fall in value.
Inflation wipes out all savings, there is often a rush to spend money while it has value. "Bank runs" and "Bank Bail in's" where the bank will limit your withdraws to prop up the bank temporarily. Sure here the FDIC may insure it, but its nothing if your money is losing value by the hour and it takes months to get it actually into your hands. And many countries have issues with a person holding cash..."You're automatically a drug dealer! >your money is now drug money! >Asset forfeiture" ...I cant count how many times this happens.
People yell " physical gold and silver!" ... yeah, those do hold value well, however the gov does tax that at 26-30% when sold, and will often ban its use in dire times. ....huge grey / pirate area.
Mining stock is the same in the tax range, and nearly anything you "resell", imposed taxes and royalties can be added leaving you high and dry.
Precious metal holdings have been banned in the past, even here in the USA...aka Government confiscation.
Nationalization of Precious metals mines have happened.
Edit: I now realize there are many ways stocks can play out.
Real Estate will raise in value hugely, However so will the taxes, longer contracts at fixed rates benefits the lendee.
Things that you use, if you can stock or invest in it.
-I stock bulk diesel for my cars while following historical averages to buy cheap.
-Rotating food stock
-Extra maintenance items, including the big things like a roof on your home if its coming time. Not joking I have a spare water heater and backup heating options, along with minor parts and filters to fix them. Same with cars and engines, (spark plugs, filters (all different filters), oil, cheap sensors that usually go bad and are only 4-10$ each, 1-2 extra alternator per vehicle, belts, mowing belts, bearings, grease, ... and I've literally had to use everything on that list and reorder.)
Things that directly pay you back or are insurance. Saving money is making money.
-Security, Locks, Alarms, Cameras, people steal.
A deep freezer for instance can stock food you use and buy on sale.
Solar energy and solar heating supplements energy you use anyways
Rainwater can be collected and used rather than buying from a source.
A cooking gadget vs eating out.
Tools and learning to fix things vs hire.
House insulation.-Better insulative windows, and sealing.
Bidet on toilet (lol serious though...)
Your education can be a huge one, not just for prepping but also in your work.
Things that prevent rot, fire, flood / humidity, or failure. Humidity is a silent killer to many preps. (water sump pumps, dehumidifiers, leak prevention, fire extinguishers / sprinklers, )
Things that last and can be resold on the street if need be. This list can be huge, you have to balance it with liquidity, what you use but can also sell before it goes bad / fails.
Honestly and unpopularly, Things that can avoid tax when the price inflates out of control and you wish to sell. The numbers can be so distorted in both price and taxing of income. Eggs for instance, in many countries from Weimar Republic of Germany to Venezuela, increased 15,000%+, So that $15,000 egg / $150,000 dozen that you sold from your chickens gets taxed in the highest tax bracket? (which can go into the 90% range if rules aren't changed for the massive inflation) Taxes usually try raising during this and many companies flee the country, add robots / machines, or downsize as the result of more taxes making work and jobs even more of an issue. .. honestly history shows the whole thing being a cluster-duck in so many ways. Alternative currencies pop up, actual trades happen and go unreported, crime even shifts when things get too bad, again with Venezuela, I read that criminals were moving to other countries because the people were too poor to even make anything robbing! You can also have a business where you write off so many things that you would use anyways. The numbers get... err... odd, play the game.
It is usually around 10 years of chaos before things start "stabilizing." and even then, so much damage has occured.
This is a serious thing that has happened to once prosperous people / civilizations in the past...don't think you're exempt, especially when the numbers are at historical limits in many countries. Invest in yourself and what you use regularly.
In the past month, ETH price fluctuates a few times from donw below $300 to over $400, and the down to someplace near $320 ,now climbing to $367. Not like bitcoin mining, the revenue of ETH miner (graphic cards like rx570 and GTX1080, or InnosiliconA10 Pro) not always decline as ETH price drops, or it declines not as fast as the coin price. The secret is the transaction fee increase on Ethereum network. Especially when recently the rise of DeFi applications has directly caused network congestion on the underlying public chain Ethereum. The average gas price paid by users has reached a maximum of 480Gwei, and then fell back to 68Gwei. Now climbing up to 146Gwei. https://preview.redd.it/q5ylgwg5uhm51.png?width=554&format=png&auto=webp&s=66e28a6d43537fbd4b5a44d78efa6c3d72c6fda9 Source: etherscan It seems ethereum miners benefit the most from the network congestion because of the high transaction fees. And ETH mining looks more promising than bitcoin mining. A simple calculation: let’s say current ETH price is $367, the daily net income of A10 Pro is about $17~$20. The static payback period of this miner is around 200 days. I know it may vary as the price change, or the maintenance cost increase or the electricity cost increase. So probably longer than this. But still 200days sounds attractive. Do you guys think if the chips inside this miner could be sold after it shut down?
What I currently use for privacy (after almost 2 years of long investing into it)
Hello. 👋🏻 In this post, we will tell you about interest in cryptocurrency today. 🔸 Experts noted that in May there were two days when the number of tweets about bitcoin exceeded the level of 50,000. The last time the same indicators were recorded in July 2018. 🔸 The analytics team also recorded an absolute record for tweets about BTC coming from unique Twitter accounts. At the same time, the correlation between the 30-day average volume of tweets and the market capitalization of bitcoin at the end of spring was r = 0.86, which indicates the presence of a bullish trend. 🔸 Meanwhile, the first cryptocurrency has grown again. After the bitcoin price was around $ 9,000 for some time, its price has grown to ~$11,090 recently. 🔸 Also, today the industry of PoS mining is rapidly developing. Some cryptocurrency exchanges already support the direction of PoS mining. One of such sites is the cryptocurrency exchange Posbit.io. ✅ PosBit is the first exchange specialized in trading POS tokens. PosBit makes it possible to quickly buy or sell tokens that are mined directly in the wallet, bringing passive income to the holder. And the margin trading option is scheduled to be added in the last quarter of 2020 - early 2021! 📢 PosBit is what you have been waiting for! Join now! 📢 Register here:https://posbit.io https://preview.redd.it/w0gs0iwbi1e51.jpg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6f48fe8246fefc46878cf42e9e5ca0156d886a84
https://preview.redd.it/sk4qzvg2o5p51.jpg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=42c422967888ffb44288e1cf7b8e9b4ffd6e20a1 Quite recently, the world has seen a remarkable event — an anonymous bitcoin whale sent a total of $2.24 billion in a series of transactions. Large transactions are certainly not uncommon for the bitcoin network. Whale Alert — blockchain tracker and analytics system — regularly reports large and interesting transactions. Although $2.24 billion is the largest ever cryptocurrency transfer, the most remarkable thing about this event is not the transfer amount but the incredibly little fee the sender paid for the transaction — less than $1. With no checkups and intermediaries. If such a transfer had happened a few years ago, it would have considered abnormal and unreal. Today it is a matter of fact. With each passing day, using cryptocurrency for making transfers is getting more attractive than bank transfers. The UMI network, which enables instant payments with no fees, fits in best with new realities. Let's explore this issue. Freedom from Bank Charges The BTC whale sent the above-mentioned amount in seven successive transactions within one hour. The total amount was 241,500 BTC, which was equivalent to $2.24 bln. Each transfer cost around 0.0001 BTC or just $0.93, giving a total of about $6.51 for the seven transfers. Let's compare now how much you would be charged for an identical transfer in a bank. In big banks, the international transfer fee is at least 1% of the amount, but it is often higher than that depending on the conditions. For instance, the VISA system charges 1 to 10% of the transaction amount for an international transfer (minimum of $10). Therefore, the more you transfer, the more you pay for it. To transfer the above-mentioned amount via a bank, a customer would have to part with as much as $22.4 mln (!!!), in the best-case scenario — that is if the fee is the minimum 1%. In other words, a bank would make a fortune — virtually at the drop of a hat, making no effort whatsoever — by simply taking someone's money. What makes it more absurd is that banks intend to further raise their fees amid coronavirus pandemic. Cryptocurrencies are a completely different story. In most cryptocurrency networks, fees do not depend on the transaction amount — the same fee could be charged for transferring $1 or $1 bln. In the cryptocurrency world, it doesn't matter how much money you transfer. If you make a big transfer, no one makes you pay the “tithe”. With UMI, you don't have to pay anything to anyone — not a dime. But we'll get back to this a little later. Freedom from Excessive Limits and Unneeded Checkups First, let's consider another important factor — the very possibility to make unhindered transfers of large amounts via bank especially foreign transfers. The irony is that even if someone chooses to pay this multi-million dollar fee, the transfer would far from being 100% successful. In most countries, including the Russian Federation, a $22 bln transaction would be virtually impossible to run in a state-owned bank, let alone private banks. Even going through a bunch of mandatory procedures as well as wasting lots of nerves and time wouldn't save the day. This is why a payment of this size is virtually impossible:
The overwhelming majority of the world's banks just don't happen to have such large amounts on their correspondent accounts. Even if we assume they do have sufficient funds on the books, this money doesn't just sit idle — bankers use it in their own favor, for instance, to grant loans, make deposit payments, etc. No bank would agree to send all its reserve funds to another bank on your orders. Moreover, banks have no right to violate the law in terms of reserve requirements, including currency norms. And processing such a large amount contradicts the established rules and regulations. So, even if money is technically recorded on the customer's account, transferring it to another bank, especially in a foreign country, is still a virtually impossible task.
In almost all states transactions of this scale are only allowed on the level of governments, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, or mega-tycoons with a declared multi-billion dollar income, such as Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and the like. In other words, only customers with a special status can make especially large transfers without restrictions. Any “abnormal” transactions fall under suspicion and automatically frozen. If you have always run $500 transactions on a monthly basis, any incoming or outgoing $10,000 transfer would most probably be frozen. Let alone billions of dollars. An average owner of a large business will only be allowed to transfer billions of dollars after they get approval from FATF on an individual basis. Obviously, they must also be verified using KYC (Know Your Customer) and AML (Anti-money laundering) procedures and must establish the provenance of each dime they transfer. They have to do all this to transfer THEIR money, with a huge fee of billions of dollars.
The situation is even worse because it is equally true for receiving monetary transfers. In other words, if you have a large amount successfully transferred to you, there is no guarantee that you can use this money. Sadly, even if the money leaves the sender's bank, the recipient's bank can instantly freeze it. On the very same day, you could get a visit from bank or government officials along with the state security service and a special interrogation. If you cannot provide provenance data for the funds, the transfer could easily remain frozen for good. Naturally, this system opens the doors for various types of abuse of power and manipulation by bankers, governments, and state services.
For the existing banking system, any big transaction makes you a suspect of some manipulations resulting in a frozen transfer. More importantly, it isn't only true for multi-billion or multi-million transfers. Any transaction involving hundreds of thousands, dozens of thousands, or simply thousands of dollars may be deemed suspicious and sanctioned. It means that anyone who runs relatively big transactions runs the risk of encountering certain problems at any time. Cryptocurrencies are a step toward free transfers The above-described situation proves that digital money helps people get rid of many problems related to bank transfers: high fees, payment amount limits, specification of personal data, verification procedures. With digital money, you don't have to prove or explain anything. This is a real revolution that makes people free from fees and manipulation. Cryptocurrencies allow people to be a master of their funds and no one has the power to change this. No one charges you crazy fees and no one can steal your coins. With each passing minute, cryptocurrencies are becoming part of our life, and rather than profit from trading, investment, mining, or staking, they are regarded as a convenient way of sending funds. Only cryptocurrencies make people feel completely safe and allow them to transfer whatever amount wherever they want. This is a huge step towards changing the existing financial system, and it has already been made. But UMI Goes Even Further It may appear that problem with bank fees concerns only large businessmen. In real fact, regular people living live paycheck to paycheck are more sensitive to this issue. Being on a tight budget, most people have to pay for any bank transaction. You always pay fees charged by banks — when you pay utility bills, buy online, deposit money to your bank card, receive money, transfer money between your accounts or withdraw cash from an ATM. Overall, bank fees cost people a lot of money. It's curious to know how much your pay banks every year for mediation. Now let's see how you can make transactions using UMI. In terms of fees, UMI is more profitable than banks and even more profitable than most of the other cryptocurrencies, including bitcoin. There are no fees in the UMI network at all, even hidden ones. All transactions are instant. That is, if you sent $2.24 billion through the UMI network, it would be instant and completely free. There are no limits, verifications, and other nervous procedures. Instant, free, and secure — here and now. This is the key advantage of UMI as a payment instrument. Our cryptocurrency empowers all people — from large businessmen to factory workers — with profitable and absolutely safe funds transfers. UMI gives all people around the globe equal opportunities. This is the next step toward a free financial world. We are the first to make it. Sincerely yours, UMI team
Initial capital in Bitcoin trading: experts have named the minimum amount
Initial capital in Bitcoin trading: experts have named the minimum amount To begin with, one dollar may be enough on the cryptocurrency market, but in the future, experts recommend investing in digital money at least a thousand, and even tens of thousands of dollars. The popularity of digital money is growing in 2020. More and more people are seeking to enter the blockchain industry through investing, mining or trading. However, first you need to decide how much money can be allocated for a risky attempt to make money on cryptocurrency. Experts told why $1 sometimes may be enough, and in which case it is not worth coming to the market without $50,000 in stock.
$ 1 trading
Vladislav Antonov, analyst at IAC “Alpari” If a person comes to the market to trade, then he must first learn this craft and only then decide with what amount to start. You can buy a Porsche and tie it in a knot in a few minutes. To get behind the wheel of a car, you need to learn the rules of the road and learn how to manage them, avoiding accidents. After training, pass the exam and get a license. Here the market takes the exam. If you break the rules, he takes money from the deposit through traders who are on the other side of you. On the Binance market, you can start trading with as little as $1. There is such a cryptocurrency — Stellar (XLM). 10 tokens cost 0.03 USDT, 100 tokens — 0.39 USDT, 1000–3.91 USDT. You can make 100 trades at 1 XLM, and you won’t even get losses by $1. Perfect conditions to hone your skills. The market can also be compared to ultimate fighting. Here it is important not to start with what amount, but to learn how to correctly calculate the trading volume from the protective stop. That is, a trader must first determine how much he is risking in one deal and calculate the risk. It is believed that the risk in one transaction should not exceed 5% of the deposit, and better not more than 2%. First you train, then you enter the ring. If you take, for example, a $100 deposit, then 5% will be $5. You clearly know that if the market goes against you, you will lose $5. 90% do not do this and, using large shoulders, lose everything. Then, after analyzing the market, you find the entry point and the level where the protective stop will be placed (the level at which the loss will be closed). This is where the main problem of traders’ failures lies. Everyone wants to make a million from $100, only they take big risks. The trader must find a comfortable amount of losses. Loss is the right to earn like a business expense. When a trader gives up driving on the market with a small amount of the deposit, then he can increase it. It doesn’t matter from what amount you count 2%. If the deposit is $1000, then this is a risk of $20, if the deposit is $10,000 — $200, etc. It is necessary to answer the question: at what amount of loss is it comfortable for me to trade? And if it is possible to reduce the risk per trade by less than 2%, then it is worth doing.
$1000 and diversification
Andrey Podolyan, CEO Cryptorg.Exchange The average static deposit on crypto exchanges can be considered a deposit of about $1000. In general, for many traders this is already the amount that it is a pity to lose and with which it is interesting to work. However, it is worth focusing on the income that OTC activities bring to the trader / investor. If a person earns $10,000 and more monthly, then, naturally, he will not be interested in a $1,000 deposit. And if a person earns $500–1000, then a $1000 deposit for him will be even too large an amount. In my opinion, a trader is successful if he earns a little higher than the average national salary. Example: Average salary is $1000. On average, a trader earns 10% per month on his deposit. Therefore, the working deposit must be at least $10,000. Valery Petrov, RACIB Vice President for Market Development and Regulation When determining investments in cryptocurrency, first of all, you need to understand that cryptocurrency cannot be the only asset in an investment portfolio. It must be diversified according to the risk-return criterion. The point of this approach is as follows: the entire portfolio is structured according to the level of risk that you are willing to take on. Since cryptocurrency belongs to high-risk assets and, in fact, is a speculative asset, the risks of losses for which are very high, it makes no sense to allocate more than 25–30% of the portfolio to such an asset class. Especially in today’s market, when the classical theory of portfolio investment does not work very well. “Black swans” and other market fluctuations are constantly encountered, which do not fit into the classical theory of investor behavior in the market. For a person whose main income is wages, the formation of such an investment volume should occur gradually. My recommendation is to transfer to such an investment portfolio about 10% of monthly income, despite the fact that it is at least $1500–2000. Then any loss will not greatly affect the lifestyle. It makes no sense to start investing in cryptocurrencies from the very first deduction. A third of the conditional $200 is an insignificant amount to go to the digital money market with it. On the crypto market, it is advisable to start operations from an amount of approximately $1000. Then the commissions and market fluctuations that exist there will not lead to quick and negative changes in the portfolio. From this amount, you can increase investments in the crypto market. At the same time, it is necessary to observe the proportions according to which the volume of investments in cryptocurrencies should not exceed 25–30% of the portfolio, given that other assets are less risky, but they will be able to ensure stability.
Investments from $ 50,000
Victor Pershikov, Lead Analyst at 8848 Invest When determining the minimum investment amount, you need to take into account the specifics of the cryptocurrency market, which distinguishes this site from classical financial markets. Firstly, the cryptocurrency market is incomparably more volatile than classic financial instruments, which is reflected in both higher incomes and higher risks of losing funds. In this regard, the initial capital must be sufficient in order to receive a decent return on investment, while remaining tolerant of risk. Secondly, price corrections in the cryptocurrency market are more significant than corrections in other markets, and can reach 70–90% of the developing trend movement. This also leaves an imprint on the initial capital requirements, because the investor must understand that he is just facing a deep correction and not sell his assets ahead of time, fearing a trend reversal. The cryptocurrency market is still very young and there are high risks of various manipulations. In this regard, the investor should distribute his assets into the most diversified portfolio possible so that a collapse or bursting of a bubble in one sector does not lead to significant capital losses. Therefore, an investor must have a higher, by the standards of classical markets, initial capital in order to comfortably invest in digital assets. I recommend starting investing in digital assets with an amount of at least $50,000, since this amount of funds, on the one hand, allows you to receive income that exceeds income from classical financial markets, and on the other hand, you can be calm and wait out the drawdown or decrease in the crypto market capitalization, which happens quite regularly. I would also advise focusing not on margin trading, but on investing in digital assets, since on the one hand, intraday trading is statistically successful with a fairly small number of participants, and on the other hand, the bullish nature of digital assets, coupled with a very real opportunity selecting truly worthwhile assets into your portfolio allows even a not too experienced trader to succeed in the CFA market. Subscribe to our Telegram channel
Avoid the risk of smashing the stocks of large investors, diversify the account to reduce the risk With the development of blockchain technology, it is no longer satisfied with only obtaining data on the chain. How to bridge the connection between the real world and the blockchain world has always been the direction of technological conquest, and the oracle plays this role. Especially with the popularity of the DeFi concept, the large-scale application of Oracle Machine (Oracle Machine) in financial derivatives trading platforms, gambling games, and prediction markets has made it a new track in the industry. At present, the oracle project represented by EULER is operating well, continues to lead the trend of oracle development, and continues to consolidate the basic technical support for the DeFi revolution. Its already-online mining design is also refreshing. EULER's platform pass EUCC, 90% of which is used for mining output, and the entire mining mechanism runs through the distributed oracle protocol, in which three roles are set up: data provider, data verifier, and arbitration node. And reward and punishment mechanism to ensure ecological operation. How does EULER mine? Is it a new wealth code? What are the characteristics? With these questions, let us analyze the distribution mechanism, mining mechanism, and token value one by one. The mining mechanism is fairer, and small and medium miners benefit more Before talking about the mining mechanism of EUCC, we can look at the distribution of other tokens. The blockchain itself upholds fairness and justice, without permission, so that everyone in the network can participate. However, when we look at Bitcoin mining, it is now monopolized by several mining machine vendors such as Bitmain, and ordinary people cannot participate at all. If a PoW husband chain like Bitcoin has formed the head effect of mining, what about a relatively fair PoS type blockchain? Let's take Cosmos as an example. Since Binance joined its validator node, it has instantly ranked to the top with the strong financial strength and user base of the top exchange, and does not give small and medium nodes the slightest chance. Looking back at the mining mechanism of EUCC, we can find that it is very friendly to ordinary users. Assuming that 6.3 million EUCCs are scattered to the accounts of 12 individuals, 8 of them hold 1 million, 1 person holds 99.9 million, and one person holds 5,299,800. Our income is related to the ranking. We give a flashback ranking of 12 people's currency holdings. The staking ranking is based on the jump ranking weighting algorithm rather than the weighted average of the user staking amount. This is to avoid EUCC being controlled by a few people, avoid monopoly, and break up large users. Do your best to achieve a win-win situation in EULER's community. Decentralized tokens create a closed loop: Euler platform currency EUCC flashback ranking reverse order weighting algorithm mechanism The EUCC currency holding and promotion revenue is set through the reverse ranking weighting algorithm of the reverse order to achieve a small number of rows, and the best currency holding is the most ideal. Disperse large accounts, avoid the formation of monopoly, and at the same time encourage currency holding, encourage the whole network to increase the position to catch up, prevent EUCC from being controlled by a few wealthy people and market oligarchs and affect circulation, and use personal efforts to determine you to get promotion benefits while driving users Fission keeps the whole network dynamic. Compared with other mining projects, EULER has introduced a unique flashback ranking weighting algorithm mechanism in the mining design, which provides a good mechanism guarantee for attracting more users to participate in mining, and it is also beneficial to data providers. Decentralization ensures the decentralization of the oracle system and well guarantees the positive development of the community.
I'm kinda ok with MCO -> CRO Swap; a indepth personal view
EDIT: this post https://www.reddit.com/Crypto_com/comments/i2yhuz/open_letter_to_kris_from_one_of_cdcs_biggest/ from u/CryptoMines expresses my sentiments and concerns better than I could ever put into words myself. I'd say read his/her post instead. Very long post ahead, but TL;DR, I actually see this swap as a positive change, despite fearing for what it may do to my portofolio, and having mixed feelings about its consequences on CDC reputation.Before I start, for the sake of context and bias, here's my personal situation as a CDC user:
I'm just a average Joe, with a 500 MCO Jade card. I bough 50 MCO at 5,22€ in September 2019 and staked for Ruby, then bough 440 MCO at 2.47€ in March 2020 and upgraded to Jade. The total amount of MCO I own is currently 515, and everything above the 500 stake is cashback rewards.
I bought MCO exclusively for the card and bonus Earn interest benefits, and had no plans to unstake my MCO. Now with the swap, definetly won't unstake.
The MCO -> CRO conversion rates increased the fiat value of my MCO in about 1000€.
I own a decent amount of CRO, wich I bought at ~0,031€ in March 2020.
The country where I live is crypto friendly and completely crypto-tax free; I only have to pay income tax if I deposit a certain threshold of fiat in my bank.
Take all these factors into account as possible (if not major) influencers or bias on my opinions; both the emotional and economical ones. Call me a fool or a devil's advocate if you want, but keep your torches and pitchforks down. As we say here on Reddit: "Remember the human".----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Like all of you, I woke up to find this anouncement, wich came right the #[email protected] out of nowere, and gives you little to no options. Good or bad, this announcement arrived as basicly a "comply or die" choice. Emotionally, this came as both terrifying and disgusting; but rationally, I cannot blame CDC for it. Because wether we like it or not, CDC is a centralized company, and the MCO tokens were never a stock or legally binding contract; something wich pretty much every crypto company or ICO warns in their T&C and risk warnings. Not to mention the mostly unregulated status of the cryptocurrency and. I'll call this "dishonest" any day, but I cannot see it as a "scammy" since I can't see how they broke any rules or terms. A scammer would take your money/assets away, but CDC is offering you to swap it for another asset wich you can sell right away if you want. And at current price, it is still worth more or less as much fiat as MCO cost at the 5 $/€ wich was more or less the comunity standard used for calculating the card prices. And by that, I mean that the fiat value of 50/500/5000 MCO (as CRO) is actually not far from the 250/2500/25'000 $/€ that the comunity commonly used as standard when calculating the ROI and (under)valuation of MCO. So CDC is at least trying to give us the option to get (some) our money back, and not at a unfair rate. If you happened to buy MCO at a price higher than this, I can't see how that's CDC's fault, just as I don't see anyone blaming Bitcoin or Altcoins for getting them stuck at the top of the 2017 bubble burst. I read many posts in this reddit calling this a "backstab" and "betrayal" of early investors and for the people who "believed in MCO". Emotionally, I share your sentiment.But after thinking it for a while, I'd say this was actually very rewarding for early investors and long term MCO supporters. As CDC clearly sates in the swap rules; nobody is going to lose their card tier or MCO stake benefits (at least not yet), and your stake DOES NOT unstake automatically after 180 days. Actually, so far they never did unstake automatically, you had to manually unstake yourself. With this in mind, everyone who already got their cards, or at least staked MCO to reserve one, basicly got them 3-5 times cheaper than future users; and IMHO, now the $/€ price of cards feels more fair and sustainable compared to their benefits.So in a sense, everyone who supported and believed on the MCO for its utility (i.e. the card and app benefits) has been greatly rewarded with perks that they get to keep, but are now out of reach for a lot of people.Likewise, the people who believed and invested in CRO (for whatever reason), have also been rewarded, as their CRO tokens now have more utility. So either the price of CRO crashes down to around 0.05 $/€, or the people who bought MCO/CRO early or cheap are now massively benefited. But then again, so is everyone who bought or mined Bitcoin in its early days, or invested in Bitcoin at crucial points of its history... how is that unfair? Some people bought Ethereum at 1'400 $ on a mix of hopes/promises that it would continue to rise; it didn't. And even today with DeFi and ETH 2.0 ever closer, it is still far from that price. And I know what some of you are thinking: "The cards aren't avaiable in my country yet, that's why I didn't buy/stake."Well, they weren't avaiable in my country either when I staked 50 MCO. Heck, the cards weren't avaiable in anyones country when MCO started, but many people still bought it and staked it. That's exacly what "early adopter", "long supporter" and "believing in MCO" means. On the other hand, the people who invested on MCO as a speculative asset and decided to HODL and hoard MCO, hoping for its price to moon and then sell MCO at big profit, had their dreams mercilessly crushed by this swap... and good lord, I feel their pain.But this is also where I'll commit the sin of being judgemental, because IMHO, speculating on MCO never made any sense to me; MCO was a utility token, not a value token, so it should not (and could not) ever be worth more than the value of its utility. That's basicly how stablecoins and PAXG are able to stay stable; because nobody will pay more/less than the value of the asset/service they represent. Tough now that I'm looking at the new card stake tiers in CRO, I have to give credit to the MCO hodlers I just now criticised; maybe you were right all along. Unless the price of CRO crashes or corrects, I wich case, I un-rest my case. One thing I'll agree with everyone tough, is that I fell that CDC just suckerpunched it's comunity. Because even if we have no vote on its decisions (wich again, we aren't necessarily entitled to, since they are a privante and centralized business) they should/could have warned that this was in their plans well in advance; if anything to allow those who wouldn't like it to exit this train calmly. Also the CRO stake duration reset. The mandatory reset of your CRO stake for taking advantage of the early swap bonus feels like another gut-punch. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now that we got emotional feelings out of the way, here's my sentiment about how this will affect the overall CDC ecossystem. One common criticism of the sustainability of MCO was that its supply cap could never allow a large number of cards to be issued, and how could CDC keep paying the cashbacks and rebates. On the oposite corner, one of the major criticisms of the sustainability of CRO, was it's ridiculously huge supply cap and inflation caused by the gradual un-freezing and release of more CRO into the system. But now that MCO and CRO became one, it might just have made both issues more sustainable. Now the huge supply cap of CRO makes more sense, as it allows a much larger number of future users to stake for cards (at higher costs, but still). And because most card cashback is small parcels, this large supply also ensures that CDC can keep paying said cashbacks for a long time; especially since it can be semi-renewable trough the trading fees we pay in CRO. Before this, the MCO you got as cashback had no use, other than selling it for fiat or speculate on its price. But CRO can be used, at the very least, to receive a discount on trading fees. And everytime you pay trading fees in CRO or spend CRO on a Syndicate event, some of that CRO goes back to CDC, wich they can use to keep paying the cahsback/rebates. And keep in mind, the technicalities of CRO can be changed, as well as the perks and utilities it can be used for. So even if this current model doesn't fix everything (wich it probably doesn't) it can still be changed to patch problems or expand its use. Another obvious potentially positive outcome of this, is that now CDC only has to focus on 1 token, so it makes it easier to manage and drive its value. People complained that CDC was neglecting MCO over promoting CRO, but now they can focus on both services (cards/exchange) at the same time. Sure, this might not bring much advantage to the common customer, but its probably a major resource saver and optimizer at corporate levels; wich in the long term ultimately benefits its customers. Much like Ethereum is undergoing major changes to ensure its scalability, the crypto companies themselves also have to change to acommodate the growing number of users, especially as the cryptomarket and DeFi are growing and becoming more competitive. Business strategies that were once successfull became obsolete, and exchanges that once held near-monopolies had to adjust to rising competitors. There is no reason why CDC shouldn't keep up with this, or at least try to. Point is, the financial markets, crypto or otherwise, are not a status quo haven. And when something is wrong, something has to be changed, even if it costs. The very rise of cryptocurrencies and blockchain, wich is why we are here in the first place, is a perfect example of this, as it experiments and provides alternatives to legacy/traditional products and technologies. Was this the best solution to its current problems? Is this what will protect us as customers from a potentially unsustainable business model? I have no idea. This change ripped me too from my previous more or less relaxed status quo (the safety of the value of the CRO I bough for cheap), along with CRO late investors wich now probably fear for the devaluation of their CRO. To say nothing of the blow this represents for my trust (and I believe everyone elses trust) on CDC and its public relations. It's not what CDC did, it's how they did it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wether you actually bothered to read all I wrote or just skip everything (can't blame you), I'm eager to hear your opinions and whatever criticisms on my opinions you may have. If you just want to vent at me, you are welcome too; now you can raise your pitchforks and torches.
The bitcoin reward that miners receive is an incentive which motivates people to assist in the primary purpose of mining: to support, legitimize and monitor the Bitcoin network and its blockchain. Bitcoin has a mining reward that is designed to reduce by half at certain blocks. In 2019, Bitcoin miners receive 12.5 BTC each time they successfully mine a block. By the end of May 2020, the next halving event should occur. When this happens, the mining reward will only be 6.25 BTC. How Much Do Bitcoin Miners Make in 2019? Bitcoin mining revenue with the latest generation hardware ranges anywhere from $70/MWh to north of $200/MWh depending on price, global hashrate and difficulty." Bitcoin mining can still make sense and be profitable for some individuals. Equipment is more easily obtained, although competitive ASICs cost anywhere from a few hundred dollars up to about $10,000. You won't make money mining bitcoins unless you either have a really high-end GPU from ATI, an FPGA or an ASIC. That's the short answer. Having a decent CPU can be used for Litecoin mining, which can be a small income in itself, but we are here to talk about Bitcoin.
Best Bitcoin Mining Rigs in 2020 New 110 TH/s Antminer ...
Free bitcoin mining For extra income https://miningcheap.io/322843 Hey! getting into crypto has never been so easy, sign up on CoinSwitch Kuber using my referral. Hurry, first 10 users will get Rs. 50 worth FREE BTC. Link ex... Welcome To INCOME BANGLA You Can Find New Latest Launch Earning Website Hear. Remember Your Money Your Choice Invest On your Own Risk All Site . Thank You..... What are the BEST BITCOIN MINING RIGS in 2020?! Let's review the best Bitcoin miners and their profitability. Bitmain just released the Antminer S19 and S19 ... This video goes over my 7 day 1 week Bitcoin Mining experiment. I let my computer Mine for Bitcoin for a week straight, to see how much money I could generat...