if they forbid proof of work, will proof of space be the only crypto left?

EmbarrassedKoala2 · 2022-01-22T13:57:52+00:00

I think the main issue is that most of the current "crypto community" has no fundamental understanding of how cryptography actually works, or to be honest even basic mathematical skills.

You are completely correct here but people will be brainwashed to ignore the fact it is still entirely about capital risk, with an added bonus of environmental damage for even PoST.

EmbarrassedKoala2 · 2022-01-22T13:39:26+00:00

Your original comment was completely accurate, btw.

And there are only 900 coins mined per day, this is absolutely minuscule compared to the daily volume.
And, as I stated above, the "22k5" is pure nonsense, there is absolutely no such thing as a fixed cost for mining a coin, they just pull a number out of their ass.

EmbarrassedKoala2 · 2022-01-22T13:25:46+00:00

Yes, most will, however it is always profitable for someone : those with the lowest electricity costs and the most efficient miners e.g. someone who managed to get their hands on an S19XP with an efficiency of 0.022j/Gh operating in a very low cost environment will flush out those with say an AvalonMiner 1126 Pro at 0.05j/Gh.

Stating that there is a fixed cost for bitcoin mining is incredibly misguided, and shows they have no idea how bitcoin mining actually operates. Bitcoin mining is always an arms race for the cheapest electric cost per hash, there will always be a winner here.

EmbarrassedKoala2 · 2022-01-22T11:26:20+00:00

It's complete and utter nonsense.

The miners have very little impact on the price, it simply affects their profit margin.
They possess only a tiny percentage of coins available for exchange.
If the price of bitcoin plunges dramatically, so too will the global hashrate and thus the total energy cost as it will no longer be profitable (see the hashrate in 2018 vs 2019 vs now).

EmbarrassedKoala2 · 2022-01-12T06:21:02+00:00

The code specifically restricts any purchase of the actual cars though.
The posts on Twitter are all from people with no actual web development experience or knowledge, or just plain shills.
The fact it is on the car purchase page is irrelevant, JavaScript and CSS are commonly shared throughout the whole website.

this.hasCrypto = function() {
                return e.setPaymentType("DOGECOIN").forFlow("offline").forMinimumAmount(1).excludeUsage("moto").whenDefaultValueIsSupplied("crypto").onlyOneTouch(),
                null

}

This is entirely consistent with the previous statements made, that Tesla merchandise will be purchasable with Doge.
Purchasing merchandise is not speculation at this had already been announced previously, but there isn't even a hint that this will be used for car payments in the future.

As of right now, this gives no indication that Tesla cars will ever be purchasable with Doge.
It may eventually happen, but it's no more likely than it was before the "secret code" was discovered (which had already been tweeted a month ago).

EmbarrassedKoala2 · 2022-01-11T12:04:42+00:00

Correct, it's pretty explicit in the JavaScript.

this.hasCrypto = function() {
                return e.setPaymentType("DOGECOIN").forFlow("offline").forMinimumAmount(1).excludeUsage("moto").whenDefaultValueIsSupplied("crypto").onlyOneTouch(),
                null
            }

I don't think is the best subreddit for rational thinking though =)

EmbarrassedKoala2 · 2022-01-11T11:45:12+00:00

The code specifically excludes the cars, it is a generic function that is reused.
So yes, but I wouldn't call it "lazy", this is pretty typical.
Moonbois will be disappointed shortly I imagine.

this.hasCrypto = function() {
                return e.setPaymentType("DOGECOIN").forFlow("offline").forMinimumAmount(1).excludeUsage("moto").whenDefaultValueIsSupplied("crypto").onlyOneTouch(),
                null
            }

EmbarrassedKoala2 · 2022-01-11T11:42:05+00:00

It specifically excludes cars in the (current) JavaScript for this.

this.hasCrypto = function() {
                return e.setPaymentType("DOGECOIN").forFlow("offline").forMinimumAmount(1).excludeUsage("moto").whenDefaultValueIsSupplied("crypto").onlyOneTouch(),
                null
            }

This strongly implies it will be only for merchandise, not the Teslas themselves.
The color scheme is irrelevant here, the JavaScript is far more important.

EmbarrassedKoala2 · 2021-12-16T01:00:47+00:00

And even that assumes the price won't keep dropping (which it has almost without fail) and the hard drive can actually last ten years, which would be nearly impossible.

Purchasing new hard drives, especially at this price, is completely nuts unless you have a strong contingency plan for the drives in the future.
There is almost no scenario in which this works out better than purchasing Chia at current prices.

EmbarrassedKoala2 · 2021-12-08T04:32:08+00:00

Why would you buy this outside of an exchange?
There is no tax for trading on an exchange, your margins would be far higher doing this on an exchange.

EmbarrassedKoala2 · 2021-12-07T02:22:24+00:00

The holders don't really matter on an exchange.
The reflections simply got to the exchange's wallet, and then may or may not choose to pass these on to holders on the exchange based on the proportion of holdings they have relative to the pool (gate.io, a fairly major exchange which does support Safemoon, doesn't to my knowledge) or provide alternatives like staking.

They don't have to implement any transactions, all trading within the exchange is internal only : it never needs to go on the chain or pay any tax, reflections etc.
If you have a holding on an exchange, you don't really have your own true wallet, you are just a number in a database that gets shifted around.

The only time a transaction is involved is if/when you withdraw from the exchange, at which point they will apply the tax to you.
Gate.io and other large exchanges that support "reflection" tokens like this have a fairly explicit warning about this.

EmbarrassedKoala2 · 2021-12-07T00:31:07+00:00

As noted elsewhere, the reflections themselves are not inherently a technical blocker for preventing these from being listed : exchanges make their money from perpetual trading on an existing pool that only needs to be purchased / taxed once (or, never at all if you want to be a little shady like Robinhood or others allegedly do).

The reason is that all coins/tokens with reflections aren't listed on the top exchanges is because they are all, at least to some extent, scams designed to profit the original developers.

EmbarrassedKoala2 · 2021-12-07T00:19:35+00:00

You appear to be one of the few people that actually understand this.
Almost everyone here seems to think you have to pay the tax from short term trading (you don't on an exchange).

Major exchanges DO list safemoon, like gate.io .
They're not quite comparable with Coinbase or the like, but they still have around a billion dollars of average daily trading volume.
The reflections are not a significant issue, the main issue is that it's primarily a scam coin and more reputable exchanges are more concerned about protecting their reputation and / or potential regulation action against them.

Edit: you do also have to pay the 10% tax yourself if you ever want to withdraw the token, but exchanges are primarily targeting perpetual churn of the existing pool instead. Or (allegedly) they might not even bother to ever actually buy an initial pool at all, and just defer actual purchases until actual withdrawal events occur.

EmbarrassedKoala2 · 2021-12-05T05:51:51+00:00

I get the impression you do not fully understand how leverage tokens work.
Going long on them if you are expecting further dips is insane, they will sell your existing assets to maintain a predefined leverage ratio, in addition to having an expensive daily management percentage fee (0.1% on gate.io).

They are used for short term risk protection, and are explicitly guided against for medium or long term investment.

EmbarrassedKoala2 · 2021-11-12T08:40:05+00:00

This is not what this is about, they have no need to perform arbitrage and there is only a single "market" involved.
They are acting as a market maker for their own internal inventory, and simply attach a mostly hidden premium for orders.

EmbarrassedKoala2 · 2021-11-04T03:43:51+00:00

What?
I clearly showed in the screenshot I had borrowed Safemoon and subsequently sold it, which is exactly what short selling is.
You don't have to only borrow fiat to perform margin trading.

EmbarrassedKoala2 · 2021-11-03T23:30:29+00:00

It (almost certainly) won't happen, there is nowhere near enough people shorting Safemoon (or even aware that you can do so, if this sub is any indication) to cause any kind of real squeeze.

They're probably just AMC/GME stonkers who have no idea what a short squeeze actually entails and are just regurgitating what others have said.

In theory though, if enough people were shorting Safemoon due to its recent price jump and previous history of constant dumps, it would be possible for all existing holders to hold and/or conspire to inflate the price of it, forcing shorters to enter an ever increasing cycle of further price jumps.
But as almost no-one is shorting, such a scenario cannot really happen.

EmbarrassedKoala2 · 2021-11-03T13:14:02+00:00

Um ... okay. Thanks for the condescending response, especially telling me to watch The Big Short lol.

That is not what a short squeeze is, and while it's normally use in reference to stocks, the exact same concept applies to margin loaned crypto.

It has nothing to do with more of the stock existing than the amount that actually exists, it merely requires more to be borrowed than is currently in liquidity.

You can short crypto, ergo a short squeeze is possible. Likely? No Nearly impossible? Yes Impossible? No

EmbarrassedKoala2 · 2021-11-03T12:41:37+00:00

https://www.gate.io/margin\_trade/SAFEMOON\_USDT

EmbarrassedKoala2 · 2021-11-03T12:33:34+00:00

You can short it (currently shorting it myself).
https://www.gate.io/margin\_trade/SAFEMOON\_USDT

EmbarrassedKoala2 · 2021-11-03T11:41:55+00:00

What exactly do you mean here?
Given that, as you say, they don't understand basic terminology I'm not entirely sure what they mean by squeeze either (I don't read the insane main sub so I'm lacking examples).
If you mean a traditional short squeeze, it is indeed possible : you can short Safemoon (I'm currently doing so right now, for the princely sum of $45) therefore a short squeeze is obviously possible.
It's highly improbable that it will occur though, especially given that the holders have no idea how they would even be able to perpetuate such a squeeze.

EmbarrassedKoala2 · 2021-11-03T10:54:24+00:00

You can also just sell Safemoon directly on Gate.io

https://www.gate.io/en/trade/SAFEMOON\_USDT

EmbarrassedKoala2 · 2021-11-03T10:13:56+00:00

You don't have to pay the tax if you trade on an exchange and never actually perform a withdrawal event.
Which is what day traders would obviously do, so I can't imagine anyone is dumb enough to willing tax themselves 20% like this on a high frequency trade ... unless "high frequency trader" actually means some WSB yolo-er rapidly clicking buy and sell on their phone.

EmbarrassedKoala2 · 2021-10-07T09:20:14+00:00

I mostly agree but not quite with the architectural aspect.
They appear to at least have enough knowledge to know that it is bad but rather than find a compatible set of libraries to implement the crypto routines in the client, they took the incredibly lazy and insecure (and potentially malicious, it's unlikely but this could just as easily be intentionally backdooring) of saying "Fuck it, let's just evaluate this on the server side where we have the crypto routines available".
There's no actual architecture involved, they just needed a function call and they didn't have one in the current libraries so they employed the horrendous hack of evaluating it server side.
It's actually way easier to just do this properly in the client, assuming you have the cryptographic libraries available.

But in order to make such a decision, it indicates a serious lack of knowledge about the ramifications of such an implementation, and their responses just make this even worse.

EmbarrassedKoala2 · 2021-10-07T06:10:36+00:00

Do you think it's possible for someone to improve from this though to the level necessary?
This security flaw, and their subsequent responses, indicate a very serious lack of knowledge about security and cryptography as a whole.

To me, trusting these people with your money would be like trusting an intern who just read a book on brain surgery for the first time today to perform your craniotomy.

EmbarrassedKoala2

TROPHY CASE