9Lun

@Playrio sorry but there's so much nonsense in there that I can't take its benefits seriously😅

••

9Lun

@stefan_21 Well, the blockchain still has problems with the hackbar. The elephant with the quantum computers is still in the room and I think it's kind of naive to say that they are still further away and that's why we don't implement the prospective ideas. So theoretically it is possible to generate the 50% through a hard fork and don't even talk about connecting GPUs which is theoretically possible but now practically impossible

••

9Lun

@topicswithhead but I'm also a layman, so please approach everything with caution. I have no idea how it all works technically.

••

9Lun

@topicswithhead What gets hacked are always the third parties, i.e. the exchanges, custodians, etc.
Hacking Bitcoin is virtually impossible. The code is open source and if there was a gateway, it would have been exploited long ago.
It will be decades before quantum computers can become "dangerous" - but there are already concrete proposals for switching to quantum-safe addresses - so I'm not worried about that.
I don't quite know what you mean by the 50%, but if you mean a 51% attack - that would require 51% of the total computing power, which is also virtually impossible, and then you could use this attack to carry out a "double spend", for example, i.e. execute a transaction twice. The nodes would then accept this as legitimate because the longest chain wins in this case.
To explain the risk of this, I always like to refer to this video by Andreas Antonopoulos :D
https://youtu.be/ncPyMUfNyVM?si=_H57AX3FuaxVkz8J

••

9Lun

@stefan_21 My thesis was only that it is gullible to say we have plans but are not implementing them because quantum computers are still 10 years away. We have also seen with the LLMs that a technical leap can shorten development by 10 years. With the quantum computer, the 51% would probably be possible and all it would take is for one to appear tomorrow and then all the money would be gone. That's why I said it's kind of naive to say it's a problem for a few years. I also said myself about the normal 51% that it is theoretically possible but practically impossible

••

9Lun

@topicswithhead Quantum computing is a long process and won't suddenly work overnight :)
The goal in this case would clearly be to crack Satoshi's addresses - these are still the old legacy addresses and they are also less secure than today's addresses.
If the elliptical curve can be calculated backwards, then Satoshi's coins could come back onto the market at some point.
However, the newer addresses are already double-hashed and it won't be enough for QC for many more years - let alone whether this will ever be the case.
And if it does, you can update to SHA 512 addresses, for example.
Bitcoin is always such that something is only changed in the code and can only be changed if it is really necessary. But this is a feature and not a bug :)

••

9Lun

@stefan_21 I already know all this, I'm just bothered by the assumption that it's still a long way off and that's why you don't have to go all in yet. I find that very unsatisfactory, to call it unhackable. Why not play it safe now. Does it cost more compute per block or why isn't it happening yet?

••

9Lun

@topicswithhead Because the need is still missing.
There are currently more pressing issues such as scaling and privacy that need to be addressed first :)

••

9Lun

@stefan_21 unsatisfactory is a completely unnecessary reason, but it's one of the three reasons why I'm not increasing my Bitcoin position. It bothers me a lot 😂

•

1

•

9Lun

@topicswithhead I understand the idea, but that's the way it is with a decentralized network without a management level that makes decisions. If the network decides to make an update, it will be made.
The people with their nodes decide that. If there was an update for quantum-safe addresses, I would install it on my node and if the threat was big enough, most network participants would do the same :)

••

Charmin@Charmin

9Lun

It is perfectly legitimate for a financial services provider not to offer certain assets if - for whatever reason - they do not fit into the portfolio.

Of course, crypto fans don't like this because it removes a market segment that would bring liquidity (and therefore rising prices).

But the savings bank is weighing up the options here: do we get the transaction fees (which is completely risk-free for the savings bank) or would we rather offer our customers assets that we consider to be safer?

Let's not forget: Anyone who invested in BTC around November 2021 was in the red for three years.

Can Bitcoin continue to go "to da moon"? Of course it can!

Can it go close to zero? Just as possible.

•

10

•

9Lun

@Charmin The savings bank can do what it wants, that's not what I was getting at. The information in the article is just nonsense😅

••

Charmin@Charmin

9Lun

@stefan_21 What's the point? The risks/disadvantages described are all correct ...

•

1

•

federalreserve@federalreserve

9Lun

@Charmin Well, I don't even know where to start😅

Maybe I'll write a post about it in the next few days and go through the statements in the article...

But the biggest nonsense is $BITG as the "better Bitcoin" hinzustellen🤷‍♂️

••

Kuhnemann💸@donemiliokuhn

9Lun

Well then, I would say all-in savings book 😂

•

3

•

9Lun

Everyone gets Bitcoin at the price they deserve 😂 At the Sparkasse, this is probably even higher😭

•

2

•

Soprano@Soprano

9Lun

"Not regulated by financial supervision"

bro, that's the point

•

2

•

Horrax D@Horrax

9Lun

Regardless of Bitcoin. Are there generally "appealing offers" from the Sparkasse? To be honest, I only read through it to smile a few times and I wasn't disappointed.

•

2

•

9Lun

@Horrax not that I wüsste🤷‍♂️😂

••

9Lun

Yes, the Btc software really sucks 😂

•

2

•

Simon@sc1

9Lun

The term Bitcoin comes from the English language. In German, it means "digital coin". 🥳🥳

•

1

•

Das Portfoliopferd@Portfoliopferd

9Lun

@sc1 I had to laugh the first time too😂

•

1

•

9Lun

Private creation of the digital coin?

I always thought that this takes place in a public, transparent and decentralized process called "mining".

•

1

•

CryptoJunkie@CryptoJunkie

9Lun

@Portfoliopferd 💯

••

9Lun

The savings bank is the Nokia of banks.

•

1

•

Walter S.@Roots

9Lun

@CryptoJunkie No, that's the post office bank.
The savings bank is the old car in the front garden, covered with a tarpaulin, butchered and eaten away by rust.

•

2

•

Alpalaka@Alpalaka

9Lun

Take a look at the bottom of the poll. https://civey.com/umfragen/20588/wie-viel-geld-wurden-sie-insgesamt-in-kryptowahrungen-z-b-bitcoin-investieren
Actually, it's pretty clear...

I also almost believe that the report was written according to the statements of the CEO from Waiblingen. I think it's an exaggeration to directly bash the fun fund. If so, the focus should be on the colleague from Waiblingen

•

1

•

9Lun

@Alpalaka Yes, that may well be the case. I've had so many bad experiences with Sparkasse in general - including with transfers to Relai, which were then simply not executed - that I'm a bit biased towards Sparkasse.
Nevertheless, the article advises against buying Bitcoin in the name of Sparkasse and so I don't really care which dude the information comes from😅
They definitely took the cake with $BITG - I wonder if nobody looks over it before something like that is published. Nobody can take that seriously😅

•

1

•

9Lun

If I had a savings bank account now, I would cancel IMMEDIATELY!!! SOFORT!!!!!!!

•

1

•

9Lun

@Testo-Investor I am 100% with you

•

1

•

9Lun

@Testo-Investor I would switch to Commerzbank, they now offer Bitcoin and ETH an🤷‍♂️

•

1

•

9Lun

@stefan_21 BUT .... Buddy just said ... for certain target groups >50 years BTC is maybe just not the right thing ... the savings bank may not be wrong with this addition .... But of course that's not clear from the statement....

••

9Lun

@Testo-Investor Yes, of course that's true. But presenting $BITG as a better alternative because it's more climate-friendly and speaking out in favor of CBDCs is probably a bad joke... I really thought they were out of their minds😂

•

1

•

9Lun

@stefan_21 yes, only complete jerks work there too

•

1

•