Bitcoin crash coming (2 Viewers)

[JustDave]

Ok, so I understand blockchain (at its core) and how it relates to “chain of custody”, authenticity, etc., relative to “bit-coins” and crypto transactions. In simple terms, coins are mined, and from their inception, are essentially within the blockchain “framework”. So there is a chain of custody (if you will) from point “0”.

With NFT’s, say a work of art, maybe original digital movie stills, or something like that. They are not part of the blockchain framework from their inception. They are only introduced into “blockchain” upon their first transaction and if using crypto. Is that correct?

Is there a digital “fingerprint”, that could 100% determine the “one and only” original from a digital copy?

(I’m truly curious on these things, just never had the energy to research. So my questions are well intentioned)

It is part of establishing original ownership of the thing. The original creator logs the ownership on the blockchain and then ownership is established from there then transferred from owner to owner. So if someone ever wanted to validate that they currently own a thing they can validate it against the chain.

 

[ekricket]

It is part of establishing original ownership of the thing. The original creator logs the ownership on the blockchain and then ownership is established from there then transferred from owner to owner. So if someone ever wanted to validate that they currently own a thing they can validate it against the chain.

Hmmm not getting political but this sounds like a good thing for the voting process. Like you own the NFT for your vote and your voting history is part of it for verification?

 

[Budha]

It is part of establishing original ownership of the thing. The original creator logs the ownership on the blockchain and then ownership is established from there then transferred from owner to owner. So if someone ever wanted to validate that they currently own a thing they can validate it against the chain.

This makes sense - thanks. The original owner (ie, the studio, artist, etc) would establish initial ownership/work product and thereby subsequent provenance.

 

[Lemonzest]

It is part of establishing original ownership of the thing. The original creator logs the ownership on the blockchain and then ownership is established from there then transferred from owner to owner. So if someone ever wanted to validate that they currently own a thing they can validate it against the chain.

I have never owned an NFT but this is how I understand it would work If the NBA creates an NFT then you would buy it from them and the first transaction would be logged on chain.

Another interesting concept with regards to collector value is provenance. For example, there could be 100s of different Jordan NFTs but there could be 1 NFT that Michael Jordan actually owned personally which would make it more valuable. In the age of influencers this is something interesting to think about.

Any famous person that owns an NFT will add to the story of that NFT and thus increase its value.

 

[Lemonzest]

Hmmm not getting political but this sounds like a good thing for the voting process. Like you own the NFT for your vote and your voting history is part of it for verification?

I totally understand why the current crypto casino model gets hate. The current iteration of crypto is a bunch of shitty tokens that are pumped and dumped. But the underlying tech of blockchain is essentially a digital ledger that allows anyone to verify without having to trust someone. The possible applications are endless and it is pretty exciting IMO.

Car ownership, House ownership, Voting - those are all great use cases.

Another application I have heard about is verifying education. Currently its actually kinda difficult to verify if someone has all the education that they claim they have on their resume. It would be easy for universities to log individuals' education on chain which could then be checked by future employers.

The 2008 crisis and current meltdown of FTX are similar. They are highly centralized orgs that are opaque. We basically just have to trust them that they are doing responsible stuff with our funds. The true spirit of crypto IMO is decentralization where we can verify and don't need to trust strangers. It is readily apparent that humanity is full of bad actors. The age of the internet which affords anonymity only makes it worse.

 

[Johnblue]

Ok, so I understand blockchain (at its core) and how it relates to “chain of custody”, authenticity, etc., relative to “bit-coins” and crypto transactions. In simple terms, coins are mined, and from their inception, are essentially within the blockchain “framework”. So there is a chain of custody (if you will) from point “0”.

With NFT’s, say a work of art, maybe original digital movie stills, or something like that. They are not part of the blockchain framework from their inception. They are only introduced into “blockchain” upon their first transaction and if using crypto. Is that correct?

Is there a digital “fingerprint”, that could 100% determine the “one and only” original from a digital copy?

(I’m truly curious on these things, just never had the energy to research. So my questions are well intentioned)

The NFT is basically just a receipt, proof of purchase cert of authenticity, it’s not necessarily the artwork itself.

But it’s a good tech for a lot of different reasons.

It allows proof, finality, programmability in resales etc. (artists can pre program 10% of funds go to artists every time it resells) or whatever anyone can dream up.

Art, Concert tickets, album sales, luxury goods, baseball cards are all pretty good examples of what NFTs would be good for.

I am pretty much a Bitcoin Maximalist who thinks all other cryptos are scams, but the use case for NFTs is pretty solid.

I’m not saying that the “generative art” we are seeing sold as NFTs now is important at all.

NFT adds a layer of authenticity and programmability to the idea of things of value.

But ultimately, they are then dependent on the blockchain they exist on, most of which are created on ETHereum and depend on the trust of Ethereum.
FWIW.

 

[cpiaaq]

It allows proof, finality, programmability in resales etc. (artists can pre program 10% of funds go to artists every time it resells) or whatever anyone can dream up.

Art, Concert tickets, album sales, luxury goods, baseball cards are all pretty good examples of what NFTs would be good for..

Someone should NFT the next NAGB and get 10% of all future sales!

 

[Budha]

I totally understand why the current crypto casino model gets hate. The current iteration of crypto is a bunch of shitty tokens that are pumped and dumped. But the underlying tech of blockchain is essentially a digital ledger that allows anyone to verify without having to trust someone. The possible applications are endless and it is pretty exciting IMO.

Car ownership, House ownership, Voting - those are all great use cases.

Another application I have heard about is verifying education. Currently its actually kinda difficult to verify if someone has all the education that they claim they have on their resume. It would be easy for universities to log individuals' education on chain which could then be checked by future employers.

The 2008 crisis and current meltdown of FTX are similar. They are highly centralized orgs that are opaque. We basically just have to trust them that they are doing responsible stuff with our funds. The true spirit of crypto IMO is decentralization where we can verify and don't need to trust strangers. It is readily apparent that humanity is full of bad actors. The age of the internet which affords anonymity only makes it worse.

This is an interesting take on the uses of blockchain with some potential real world practical applications. I’ve not really thought about it through that lens. Really interesting!

The home ownership is particularly very interesting due to the current archaic, manual title verification process. (and the entire low value add cottage industry associated with it). It’s always pissed me off having to pay all the BS fees for title search, insurance, etc., which covers the lender vs me lol.

 

[Budha]

The NFT is basically just a receipt, proof of purchase cert of authenticity, it’s not necessarily the artwork itself.

Ahh, I’ve not heard it explained in that manner before, but it does make sense!

I’ve always “assumed” an NFT was a digitally produced “work product” that was being sold as a work of art, collectible, etc.

If I understand correctly, an NFT could also represent a physical “object” as well.

 

[Johnblue]

This is an interesting take on the uses of blockchain with some potential real world practical applications. I’ve not really thought about it through that lens. Really interesting!

The home ownership is particularly very interesting due to the current archaic, manual title verification process. (and the entire low value add cottage industry associated with it). It’s always pissed me off having to pay all the BS fees for title search, insurance, etc., which covers the lender vs me lol.

Yeah man, this is exactly why there’s such constant misinformation about bitcoin and blockchain, at its core it’s designed to remove banks and lawyers and render most of what they do obsolete. CODE IS LAW.

It does a good job at that, but people just don’t understand it well enough to actually stop trusting third parties.

The financial/government systems are trying very hard to keep a monopoly on money.

“not your keys, not your coins” is one of the main mantras of bitcoiners,

but here we have FTX bankrupt, because people trusted it, instead of holding their own keys.

 

[ekricket]

but here we have FTX bankrupt, because people trusted it, instead of holding their own keys.

You can invent better things and stupidity evolves right along with it.
And criminals.
Criminals use their malicious leanings and the internet and and crypto to rob people. It’s like we need some kind of government control over the ownership of these things to protect the people. That’s usually what we do with tools of the criminal trade.

 

[Johnblue]

Ahh, I’ve not heard it explained in that manner before, but it does make sense!

I’ve always “assumed” an NFT was a digitally produced “work product” that was being sold as a work of art, collectible, etc.

If I understand correctly, an NFT could also represent a physical “object” as well.

I would say no. An NFT can only be “attached” to a physical object.

I heard Rolex was looking at ways to attach NFTs to their product, (I don’t mean physically) it would solve a pretty big problem that they have always faced.

Essentially you would have two levels of Rolex’s, those with NFT proof of provenance, list of all sales and prices it ever sold for, and those without that NFT history.

It would still be a Rolex, but didn’t have that extra level of security that comes with “blockchain”

Kinda like “carfax” but completely un-manipulatable if implemented correctly. Carfax for everything, without any company to “trust” to record and present it, because it’s hard coded in a public blockchain.

 

[DrStrange]

Many people don't truly value their title insurance till they need to make a claim. There are all sorts of problems that arise when correcting a muddled title.

While there is plenty of value in just assuring the buyer, they are in fact buying the property they think they are paying for, the more common problem comes from other encumbrances on the title. Are there liens against the property? Are there undisclosed / mis-marked easements? Are the buildings and outbuildings like fences built on the real estate you are buying? lots of things cloud the title or put the owner in a fiscal bind beyond the chain of custody for the land.

Perhaps people are confused about their relationship with the lender(s)? You should understand the note remains due even if title problems arise with the property. Your title insurance protects you. And by helping keep you solvent, it also protects the interests of the lender.

 

[Johnblue]

Many people don't truly value their title insurance till they need to make a claim. There are all sorts of problems that arise when correcting a muddled title.

While there is plenty of value in just assuring the buyer, they are in fact buying the property they think they are paying for, the more common problem comes from other encumbrances on the title. Are there liens against the property? Are there undisclosed / mis-marked easements? Are the buildings and outbuildings like fences built on the real estate you are buying? lots of things cloud the title or put the owner in a fiscal bind beyond the chain of custody for the land.

Perhaps people are confused about their relationship with the lender(s)? You should understand the note remains due even if title problems arise with the property. Your title insurance protects you. And by helping keep you solvent, it also protects the interests of the lender.

All of this is good and well.

With Bitcoin, and I would only say this about Bitcoin itself, there is an undeniable available level of Property Rights that humans have never really had ever before, and because of the unique starting and implementation of the early bitcoin network, will never arise again.

The bitcoin that I have, it belongs to me, regardless of any lawyers, governments, insurance companies, or any claims about it. There is no authority other than the code written in the core of bitcoin that can stop or change my ability to transact within it.

That’s why bitcoin is so much more important than every other coin. No other coin can ever exist that is detached from governments and banking cartels well enough to grant sovereign property rights to individuals without the blessing of our financial oligarchy.

I can get all cute and talk about blockchain smart contracts and NFTs. They are something…

But Bitcoin, and Bitcoin only is truly world changing savings technology that adds freedom to humanity.

 

[JustDave]

 

[Budha]

Many people don't truly value their title insurance till they need to make a claim. There are all sorts of problems that arise when correcting a muddled title.

That’s because the title insurance forced at closing protects the lender’s interest, not the borrower’s, unless you also get a separate “owners” title policy. Most people do not.

That entire industry is stuck in the ‘80’s and has a massive lobby to ensure it stays that way. Title Insurance waivers for a clean Title search (with supporting risk models based on widely available data) should absolutely be a “thing”. The reason they aren’t is because the industry has vehemently lobbied against it. A large % of title insurance policies from an actual risk perspective, are totally unnecessary, however are required by Lenders.

So you are correct, I do not value my title insurance as it doesn’t protect MY interest (unless I buy an additional and separate Owners Policy).

Edit: And yes, you are correct, the borrower is on the hook to the lender for the mortgage note - no matter what. No confusion, it’s well understood. The title insurance I pay for at closing, is to protect the lender in the event I don’t pay and they are unable to take legal possession of the property due to bad title. (Or otherwise unable to recoup loan principal directly caused by Title related encumbrances). So again, I’m paying to buy insurance for the lender in the event I get royally f’d. The lender is covered, but I have no legal recourse on the company/law firm that performed my title search. Everyone is covered except the buyer, and for that privilege we get to pay everyone involved a commission or fee for their expertise - and buy an additional owners policy on top - lol.

Only in residential real estate…

 

[JustDave]

That’s because the title insurance forced at closing protects the lender’s interest, not the borrower’s, unless you also get a separate “owners” title policy. Most people do not.

That entire industry is stuck in the ‘80’s and has a massive lobby to ensure it stays that way. Title Insurance waivers for a clean Title search (with supporting risk models based on widely available data) should absolutely be a “thing”. The reason they aren’t is because the industry has vehemently lobbied against it. A large % of title insurance policies from an actual risk perspective, are totally unnecessary, however are required by Lenders.

So you are correct, I do not value my title insurance as it doesn’t protect MY interest (unless I buy an additional and separate Owners Policy).

Edit: And yes, you are correct, the borrower is on the hook to the lender for the mortgage note - no matter what. No confusion, it’s well understood. The title insurance I pay for at closing, is to protect the lender in the event I don’t pay and they are unable to take legal possession of the property due to bad title. (Or otherwise unable to recoup loan principal directly caused by Title related encumbrances). So again, I’m paying to buy insurance for the lender in the event I get royally f’d. The lender is covered, but I have no legal recourse on the company/law firm that performed my title search. Everyone is covered except the buyer, and for that privilege we get to pay everyone involved a commission or fee for their expertise - and buy an additional owners policy on top - lol.

Only in residential real estate…

Many people don't truly value their title insurance till they need to make a claim. There are all sorts of problems that arise when correcting a muddled title.

While there is plenty of value in just assuring the buyer, they are in fact buying the property they think they are paying for, the more common problem comes from other encumbrances on the title. Are there liens against the property? Are there undisclosed / mis-marked easements? Are the buildings and outbuildings like fences built on the real estate you are buying? lots of things cloud the title or put the owner in a fiscal bind beyond the chain of custody for the land.

Perhaps people are confused about their relationship with the lender(s)? You should understand the note remains due even if title problems arise with the property. Your title insurance protects you. And by helping keep you solvent, it also protects the interests of the lender.

Isn't title insurance something like 0.5% of the cost of buying a home? This is a lot of ink spilled for a pretty small drop in that bucket.

Or am I missing something?

 

[Budha]

Isn't title insurance something like 0.5% of the cost of buying a home? This is a lot of ink spilled for a pretty small drop in that bucket.

Or am I missing something?

It’s more of a “It just grinds my gears” kind of thing - .

 

[Marius L]

Isn't title insurance something like 0.5% of the cost of buying a home? This is a lot of ink spilled for a pretty small drop in that bucket.

Or am I missing something?

0.5% of the biggest purchase of a lifetime is still a pretty big amount if the above info is correct, lol. Sounds like a bad deal.

 

[HaRDHouSeiNC]

FTX is not BTC

hold you fools

 

[Geremie]

Recently finalized a 3-year BTC-based loan valued at C$49k/coin — interest payable annually with option to repay 1/3 principal each year.

Used the proceeds to purchase long-term puts (2022-2023) on TSLA.

Tulips baby!!!

 

[HaRDHouSeiNC]

So how did that work
Almost like if it shorts good for repayment ??

Used for ???

If you win on that well done

 

[HaRDHouSeiNC]

HODL!!!
View attachment 618588

More HODL

 

[Rakrul]

I guess I am suffering from a failure of imagination.

I pretend I live in a third world nation. Somehow, I own a cell phone and have access to an internet connection yet can't access an internet bank.

I do have some cash, likely a very small amount of cash given my poverty-stricken country. And I somehow turn my cash into a crypto coin. Are there places like Doge R us when you walk in, hand over a bog of cash and get some digital coins.

Rural rubes actually trust this idea? Take all my liquid assists and buy an imaginary / intangible digital coin. Which almost no one in my nation will take in exchange for goods / services because they too don't have a serious way to handle crypto. Plenty of people in first world nations don't think intangible assets are prudent. Oh - - - let's not forget the coins are volatile as hell. That might also prove to be worrisome to the typical third world citizen.

And why don't I use the money changer to get US Dollars or some other haven currency? Or maybe buy gold / silver? You know, like much of the world did up until the last few decades.

Are we somehow thinking that the local government is going to come and take your gold or dollars but somehow leave you with the phone? That the secret police don't know about you going to doge R us and decide to torture you till you give up the password?

I appreciate contrived fictional accounts can be crafted where bitcoin was the only possible answer in a third world setting. And surely the first world criminal enterprises DO have a variety of uses for crypto coins that are hard to track/trace vs the regulated world of modern finance.

Just that for most things, I can find a solution using US dollars or gold coins and maybe an online bank or something similar.

And this is the business model supporting ~~12,000 different crypto coins holding ~$800,000,000,000 market capitalization?

You folks do as you like, HODL don't get scammed or lose your password or lose some critical bit of technology. Me? I'll stick with my stocks, bonds and real estate as I am old and ignorant, set in my ways. I'll be sure to eat a huge plate of crow if/when it comes to pass that fait currencies become obsolete in favor of crypto. For now though I think I fall into @Changster camp and suspect this is a lot closer to fairy tale than modern progress. -=- DrStrange

PS I can imagine a lot of prospective speculators in urban parts of third world nations. Places where stocks and bonds are risky as hell and likely corrupt. So long as the crypto kept going up and up and up, it looks pretty good as an investment. Likely not as good today. There are such people everyplace on Earth,

This might have been answered already but let me give you a real world example. I used to vacation in Venezuela from before and during Chavez' rise to power and him running it off the cliffs.

After Chavez' seizing control of the oil fields and ...well the industry, there was obviously some blow back. Venezuela had a big middle class when he came to power which is now gone. I won't go into how the entire country went to shits but the last times I was there, they had pegged the dollar to either 1800Bs or 2200Bs, can't remember now. So we would bring in lots of USD and trade to Bs on the black market, i.e. the street, where we would get a rate from 3200Bs - 3600Bs. This happened because inflation was happening and people changed their savings to USD. To prevent this, the Bs was pegged to a low exchange rate before it was finally "banned". So people saw their savings being devalued due to inflation. So they started to ship their USD abroad electronically, which was also stopped. And you weren't allowed to leave with more $1000 or something if you were a Venezuelan resident. Then people starting taking money out of their banks to try and go to Colombia or whatever, so the banks started to run out of money and then you weren't allowed to withdraw more than x amount per week.

Remember at this time card payment wasn't something all restaurants accepted and certainly not grocery stores and not many supermarkets neither. So how do you keep your savings and how do you maintain it's value?

Since there was a limit on how much USD could be exported, those who imported struggled as you couldn't pay in the only currency their seller required so that's why the black market USD exchange came from. People and businesses where desperate for USD. What I assume happened is that you had mules smuggling the USD to e.g. Colombia and changing physical USD to electronic USD there.

With crypto you'd do something similar. You get USD in (or pay more with Bs), and give the "client" BTC or USDC (stable coin) back. The user now either have a nest egg or can use this in whatever country they're running off to. Other countries might not have such strict currency policy but it usually comes with high inflation and a failing bank system (or fear of) which is combated with currency/exchange restrictions.

And I don't know about US banks, but I can't get a bank account in any other EU country without being a resident of that country. I guess Switzerland is (was?) an exception, but all/most banks now require a verified id and only some Caribbean countries allow you to start an account without being a resident there and they take excessive fees and negative interest rate, if you even can get there as you couldn't do this electronically.

I have friends in Turkey where they don't have these restrictions, at least not on crypto and due to the high inflation there, they put all their money in crypto (hopefully not (all) into some volatile crypto like BTC but a stable coin) and exchange back almost on a daily basis. That being said, there has been some stable coins that has gone worthless too, so it's not a 100% safe bet. You get to choose between walking around with sand in your hands or putting it in a toilet you hope noone will flush. But atleast you get a choice.

 

[Johnblue]

This might have been answered already but let me give you a real world example. I used to vacation in Venezuela from before and during Chavez' rise to power and him running it off the cliffs.

After Chavez' seizing control of the oil fields and ...well the industry, there was obviously some blow back. Venezuela had a big middle class when he came to power which is now gone. I won't go into how the entire country went to shits but the last times I was there, they had pegged the dollar to either 1800Bs or 2200Bs, can't remember now. So we would bring in lots of USD and trade to Bs on the black market, i.e. the street, where we would get a rate from 3200Bs - 3600Bs. This happened because inflation was happening and people changed their savings to USD. To prevent this, the Bs was pegged to a low exchange rate before it was finally "banned". So people saw their savings being devalued due to inflation. So they started to ship their USD abroad electronically, which was also stopped. And you weren't allowed to leave with more $1000 or something if you were a Venezuelan resident. Then people starting taking money out of their banks to try and go to Colombia or whatever, so the banks started to run out of money and then you weren't allowed to withdraw more than x amount per week.

Remember at this time card payment wasn't something all restaurants accepted and certainly not grocery stores and not many supermarkets neither. So how do you keep your savings and how do you maintain it's value?

Since there was a limit on how much USD could be exported, those who imported struggled as you couldn't pay in the only currency their seller required so that's why the black market USD exchange came from. People and businesses where desperate for USD. What I assume happened is that you had mules smuggling the USD to e.g. Colombia and changing physical USD to electronic USD there.

With crypto you'd do something similar. You get USD in (or pay more with Bs), and give the "client" BTC or USDC (stable coin) back. The user now either have a nest egg or can use this in whatever country they're running off to. Other countries might not have such strict currency policy but it usually comes with high inflation and a failing bank system (or fear of) which is combated with currency/exchange restrictions.

And I don't know about US banks, but I can't get a bank account in any other EU country without being a resident of that country. I guess Switzerland is (was?) an exception, but all/most banks now require a verified id and only some Caribbean countries allow you to start an account without being a resident there and they take excessive fees and negative interest rate, if you even can get there as you couldn't do this electronically.

I have friends in Turkey where they don't have these restrictions, at least not on crypto and due to the high inflation there, they put all their money in crypto (hopefully not (all) into some volatile crypto like BTC but a stable coin) and exchange back almost on a daily basis. That being said, there has been some stable coins that has gone worthless too, so it's not a 100% safe bet. You get to choose between walking around with sand in your hands or putting it in a toilet you hope noone will flush. But atleast you get a choice.

Thank you for this story.

Even with US inflation higher than it’s been in a very long time, the west doesn’t understand how horrible most of the worlds central banks are to the common man.

Bitcoin does give you an option, nobody is saying “sell all your gold and mansions and buy bitcoin instead”

What most responsible bitcoiners think is a good strategy is DCA (dollar cost average) a portion of your income savings once a week or month, or whatever is palatable, just chip in something for a rainy day, on a regular schedule, you will catch the highs and catch the lows just the same, and anyone who has done that for a couple years always seems to come out fine, beating the SNP and knocking the crap out of inflation.

The entire “crypto” industry and all its scams and shenanigans is an attack on the credibility of the one true asset that has the ability to turn central banks upside down.

The powers that be do not want humans to have sovereignty over their money.

 

[ekricket]

The powers that be do not want humans to have sovereignty over their money.

As long as you give credence to those “powers” you will always be under their control.

It always amazes me the “jails” we build for ourselves with no bars or guards, and most of the “powers” don’t even know you’ve built it.

 

[Lemonzest]

I heard something interesting about the whole FTX thing that kind of relates to chips. It seems far fetched to have a valuation of 32B. What they did with their native token of FTT was create a bunch of tokens (250M) but only offer up for sale some of them, like 1 million tokens for example. By creating a market with thin liquidity the price per token trends upwards.

Say for example those 1 million FTT tokens reach a price of $75/ea. Then what FTX did was mark down the remaining 249 million tokens at $75/ea. on their balance sheet. This was a clever way to puff up their balance sheet despite there likely not being a real market for all the FTT tokens in existence. IF they did release all the tokens at once then the price would have been much lower.

I thought of the example as it relates to chips. Just because a single sells on eBay for $100 and you happen to have 4 racks of those chips it doesn't mean you have $40,000 worth of chips.

 

[Okku]

This just in....

https://twitter.com/x/status/1592980286673145858

 

[Tommy]

I made money when APE coin dropped this year. Bought it for around $2.00 and sold it for $21.xx. Cashed out and left $100 of Bitcoin and $300 of Solana at Coinbase. I moved it from Coinbase to my cold wallet a few moths ago. I consider myself extremely lucky.

This just in....

My buddy has $25K in a high interest saving account there. He was trying to get his money out a week ago but they froze withdraws

 

[Okku]

My buddy has $25K in a high interest saving account there. He was trying to get his money out a week ago but they frozen withdrawn.

That's not fun to hear.

I had a few thousand in Celsius before it went bankrupt out of nowhere and that's been stuck in there. Had a few hundred in Voyager as well, that's stuck. I've watched that account go up and down for a few months at one point hitting over $1k because of LUNC, but it sucks.

I think it was just after my Celsius account got locked I took everything offline. I have around $250 still on Coinbase and maybe $50 on Binance currently, everything else is offline for a long long time...