Binance Square

meerybinance

575 Aufrufe
15 Kommentare
Block Sprint
--
Übersetzen
Original ansehen
Warum die Prognose für Ethereum im Jahr 2026 nach dem Abfluss von 555 Millionen Dollar ETH schwächer wirdEthereum [ETH] steht im Rampenlicht, aber nicht aus guten Gründen. Nach Wochen von Zuflüssen verließen letzte Woche 555 Millionen Dollar ETH-gebundene Produkte. Was gibt es noch? Trotz der niedrigsten Börsenguthaben seit 2016 schneidet Ethereum weiterhin schlechter ab als Bitcoin [BTC]. Die viel erwartete, von Ethereum geführte Altseason von 2026 scheint vorerst unwahrscheinlich zu sein. Die Linie des Feuers. Ethereum trug die Hauptlast des risikoscheuen Handels der letzten Woche und führte die Abflüsse von digitalen Vermögensfonds mit einem mammutartigen Abgang von 555 Millionen Dollar an. Dies ist der größte unter den wichtigen Token.

Warum die Prognose für Ethereum im Jahr 2026 nach dem Abfluss von 555 Millionen Dollar ETH schwächer wird

Ethereum [ETH] steht im Rampenlicht, aber nicht aus guten Gründen. Nach Wochen von Zuflüssen verließen letzte Woche 555 Millionen Dollar ETH-gebundene Produkte. Was gibt es noch? Trotz der niedrigsten Börsenguthaben seit 2016 schneidet Ethereum weiterhin schlechter ab als Bitcoin [BTC].
Die viel erwartete, von Ethereum geführte Altseason von 2026 scheint vorerst unwahrscheinlich zu sein.
Die Linie des Feuers.
Ethereum trug die Hauptlast des risikoscheuen Handels der letzten Woche und führte die Abflüsse von digitalen Vermögensfonds mit einem mammutartigen Abgang von 555 Millionen Dollar an. Dies ist der größte unter den wichtigen Token.
--
Bullisch
--
Bärisch
Übersetzen
Developers Bet on Bitcoin’s BIP-360 Proposal to Mitigate Quantum Computing RisksMost Bitcoin developers agree that quantum computers do not pose an immediate threat to the Bitcoin network. According to this view, machines powerful enough to break Bitcoin’s cryptographic foundations are unlikely to exist for several decades. However, critics argue that Bitcoin lacks a clearly defined preparation roadmap—especially at a time when governments and major corporations have already begun transitioning toward quantum-resistant cryptographic systems. This concern has reignited interest in Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 360 (BIP-360), which aims to address this long-term uncertainty by introducing quantum-resistant address formats, allowing users to gradually migrate toward stronger cryptographic standards over time. The Long-Term Risk Debate The topic of quantum computing and its potential threat to cryptographic blockchains has resurfaced in recent discussions surrounding Bitcoin. The core issue is not an imminent collapse, but rather long-term systemic risk—an area where developers and investors often lack a shared framework for discussion. The latest wave of debate followed statements from several prominent Bitcoin developers who pushed back against claims that quantum computing poses a near-term danger. Their argument is straightforward: no existing quantum computer is capable of breaking Bitcoin’s cryptography, and such capability is unlikely to materialize within the next few decades. Adam Back, co-founder of Blockstream, has repeatedly emphasized that short-term risk is effectively negligible. He describes quantum computing as still being in a very early research phase, with many fundamental challenges unresolved. Even in a worst-case scenario, Back argues, Bitcoin’s architecture would not allow for an instant, network-wide theft of coins. This perspective is widely shared among protocol developers. However, critics counter that the absence of a timeline does not eliminate the need for preparation. The concern is not when quantum computing becomes a threat, but whether Bitcoin will be ready when cryptographic standards inevitably evolve. Why Concerns Persist Bitcoin currently relies on elliptic curve cryptography (ECC) to secure wallets and authenticate transactions. In theory, sufficiently powerful quantum computers running Shor’s algorithm could derive private keys from public keys, exposing certain coins to potential attacks. Such an event would not instantly destroy the Bitcoin network. However, coins stored in older address formats—including an estimated 1.1 million BTC attributed to Satoshi Nakamoto that have remained untouched since 2010—could become prime targets. For now, this threat remains hypothetical. Yet many governments and large enterprises are acting as if quantum disruption is inevitable. The United States has outlined plans to phase out traditional cryptographic systems by the mid-2030s, while companies like Cloudflare and Apple have already begun implementing quantum-resistant solutions. Bitcoin, by contrast, has not reached consensus on a specific migration plan. This lack of clarity is what fuels market unease. Nic Carter, partner at Castle Island Ventures, highlights a growing disconnect between developers and investors. Capital allocators, he argues, are less concerned about whether a quantum attack happens in five or fifteen years—and more focused on whether Bitcoin has a credible, adaptable path forward should cryptographic standards change. Preparation Strategies and BIP-360 Developers maintain that Bitcoin can adapt well before any real quantum threat emerges. Several proposals suggest encouraging users to migrate toward quantum-resistant address types, or—in extreme scenarios—restricting spending from legacy wallets. These measures are preventive, not reactive. BIP-360 is one such proposal. It introduces a new class of Bitcoin addresses based on quantum-resistant cryptographic schemes, enabling users to move funds into wallets secured by algorithms believed to be more resilient against quantum attacks. The proposal outlines three different signature methods, offering increasing levels of protection and allowing the network to transition gradually rather than through a disruptive, forced upgrade. No automatic changes occur; participation is entirely voluntary, with users opting in by transferring coins to the new address formats over time. Supporters emphasize that BIP-360 is not an attempt to predict when quantum computers will arrive. Instead, it focuses on early preparation. Migrating Bitcoin to a new cryptographic standard could take years, requiring software updates, infrastructure changes, and broad community coordination. Starting early reduces the risk of rushed decisions later. That said, Bitcoin’s deliberately conservative governance model—often seen as a strength—also becomes a challenge when addressing long-term risks that demand early consensus. Conclusion Quantum computing is not an existential threat to Bitcoin today, and no reliable timeline suggests otherwise. Yet as institutional capital becomes increasingly long-term and risk-aware, even distant threats demand clearer answers. Until developers and investors align on a shared framework for addressing quantum risk, the issue will continue to linger—not as a source of panic, but as a subtle psychological overhang influencing market sentiment. 📌 This article reflects personal analysis and does not constitute financial or investment advice. 👉 Follow for more deep dives on Bitcoin development, protocol risks, and long-term crypto market insights. #BTC #TrumpTariffs #BinanceBlockchainWeek #bigbull $BTC #MeeryBinance {future}(BTCUSDT)

Developers Bet on Bitcoin’s BIP-360 Proposal to Mitigate Quantum Computing Risks

Most Bitcoin developers agree that quantum computers do not pose an immediate threat to the Bitcoin network. According to this view, machines powerful enough to break Bitcoin’s cryptographic foundations are unlikely to exist for several decades. However, critics argue that Bitcoin lacks a clearly defined preparation roadmap—especially at a time when governments and major corporations have already begun transitioning toward quantum-resistant cryptographic systems.
This concern has reignited interest in Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 360 (BIP-360), which aims to address this long-term uncertainty by introducing quantum-resistant address formats, allowing users to gradually migrate toward stronger cryptographic standards over time.
The Long-Term Risk Debate
The topic of quantum computing and its potential threat to cryptographic blockchains has resurfaced in recent discussions surrounding Bitcoin. The core issue is not an imminent collapse, but rather long-term systemic risk—an area where developers and investors often lack a shared framework for discussion.
The latest wave of debate followed statements from several prominent Bitcoin developers who pushed back against claims that quantum computing poses a near-term danger. Their argument is straightforward: no existing quantum computer is capable of breaking Bitcoin’s cryptography, and such capability is unlikely to materialize within the next few decades.
Adam Back, co-founder of Blockstream, has repeatedly emphasized that short-term risk is effectively negligible. He describes quantum computing as still being in a very early research phase, with many fundamental challenges unresolved. Even in a worst-case scenario, Back argues, Bitcoin’s architecture would not allow for an instant, network-wide theft of coins.
This perspective is widely shared among protocol developers. However, critics counter that the absence of a timeline does not eliminate the need for preparation. The concern is not when quantum computing becomes a threat, but whether Bitcoin will be ready when cryptographic standards inevitably evolve.
Why Concerns Persist
Bitcoin currently relies on elliptic curve cryptography (ECC) to secure wallets and authenticate transactions. In theory, sufficiently powerful quantum computers running Shor’s algorithm could derive private keys from public keys, exposing certain coins to potential attacks.
Such an event would not instantly destroy the Bitcoin network. However, coins stored in older address formats—including an estimated 1.1 million BTC attributed to Satoshi Nakamoto that have remained untouched since 2010—could become prime targets.
For now, this threat remains hypothetical. Yet many governments and large enterprises are acting as if quantum disruption is inevitable. The United States has outlined plans to phase out traditional cryptographic systems by the mid-2030s, while companies like Cloudflare and Apple have already begun implementing quantum-resistant solutions.
Bitcoin, by contrast, has not reached consensus on a specific migration plan. This lack of clarity is what fuels market unease.
Nic Carter, partner at Castle Island Ventures, highlights a growing disconnect between developers and investors. Capital allocators, he argues, are less concerned about whether a quantum attack happens in five or fifteen years—and more focused on whether Bitcoin has a credible, adaptable path forward should cryptographic standards change.
Preparation Strategies and BIP-360
Developers maintain that Bitcoin can adapt well before any real quantum threat emerges. Several proposals suggest encouraging users to migrate toward quantum-resistant address types, or—in extreme scenarios—restricting spending from legacy wallets. These measures are preventive, not reactive.
BIP-360 is one such proposal. It introduces a new class of Bitcoin addresses based on quantum-resistant cryptographic schemes, enabling users to move funds into wallets secured by algorithms believed to be more resilient against quantum attacks.
The proposal outlines three different signature methods, offering increasing levels of protection and allowing the network to transition gradually rather than through a disruptive, forced upgrade. No automatic changes occur; participation is entirely voluntary, with users opting in by transferring coins to the new address formats over time.
Supporters emphasize that BIP-360 is not an attempt to predict when quantum computers will arrive. Instead, it focuses on early preparation. Migrating Bitcoin to a new cryptographic standard could take years, requiring software updates, infrastructure changes, and broad community coordination. Starting early reduces the risk of rushed decisions later.
That said, Bitcoin’s deliberately conservative governance model—often seen as a strength—also becomes a challenge when addressing long-term risks that demand early consensus.
Conclusion
Quantum computing is not an existential threat to Bitcoin today, and no reliable timeline suggests otherwise. Yet as institutional capital becomes increasingly long-term and risk-aware, even distant threats demand clearer answers.
Until developers and investors align on a shared framework for addressing quantum risk, the issue will continue to linger—not as a source of panic, but as a subtle psychological overhang influencing market sentiment.
📌 This article reflects personal analysis and does not constitute financial or investment advice.
👉 Follow for more deep dives on Bitcoin development, protocol risks, and long-term crypto market insights.
#BTC #TrumpTariffs #BinanceBlockchainWeek #bigbull $BTC #MeeryBinance
Original ansehen
Vieles von dem Gespräch über das XRPL-Kreditwesen verpasst, warum es tatsächlich wichtig ist. Es geht nicht darum, Renditen zu jagen oder einen weiteren DeFi-Trend zu starten. Es geht darum, ein Kreditsystem aufzubauen, mit dem Institutionen sich wohlfühlen. Anstatt Gelder zu poolen und das Risiko auf unbekannte Kreditnehmer zu verteilen, isoliert das XRPL-Kreditwesen jedes Darlehen in seinem eigenen Tresor. Jeder Tresor hält einen Vermögenswert und hat feste Bedingungen. Das macht das Risiko transparent und vorhersehbar. Pool-Administratoren agieren wie Underwriter und entscheiden, wer leihen kann und zu welchen Bedingungen. In der Zwischenzeit können Plattformen benutzerfreundliche Werkzeuge darauf aufbauen, ohne die Basisschicht zu ändern. Das hält das Protokoll sauber und ermöglicht Innovation. Für alltägliche $XRP -Inhaber könnte dies untätige XRP in ein produktives Asset verwandeln. Die Rendite kommt aus realer Nutzung wie Zahlungen, Liquiditätsmanagement und kurzfristiger Finanzierung. Deshalb sehen einige Validatoren dies als einen wichtigen Liquiditätsfreischaltpunkt für XRPL. {spot}(XRPUSDT) #WriteToEarnUpgrade #MeeryBinance #Crypto
Vieles von dem Gespräch über das XRPL-Kreditwesen verpasst, warum es tatsächlich wichtig ist.
Es geht nicht darum, Renditen zu jagen oder einen weiteren DeFi-Trend zu starten.
Es geht darum, ein Kreditsystem aufzubauen, mit dem Institutionen sich wohlfühlen.
Anstatt Gelder zu poolen und das Risiko auf unbekannte Kreditnehmer zu verteilen, isoliert das XRPL-Kreditwesen jedes Darlehen in seinem eigenen Tresor.
Jeder Tresor hält einen Vermögenswert und hat feste Bedingungen.
Das macht das Risiko transparent und vorhersehbar.
Pool-Administratoren agieren wie Underwriter und entscheiden, wer leihen kann und zu welchen Bedingungen.
In der Zwischenzeit können Plattformen benutzerfreundliche Werkzeuge darauf aufbauen, ohne die Basisschicht zu ändern.
Das hält das Protokoll sauber und ermöglicht Innovation.
Für alltägliche $XRP -Inhaber könnte dies untätige XRP in ein produktives Asset verwandeln.
Die Rendite kommt aus realer Nutzung wie Zahlungen, Liquiditätsmanagement und kurzfristiger Finanzierung.
Deshalb sehen einige Validatoren dies als einen wichtigen Liquiditätsfreischaltpunkt für XRPL.

#WriteToEarnUpgrade #MeeryBinance #Crypto
Melde dich an, um weitere Inhalte zu entdecken
Bleib immer am Ball mit den neuesten Nachrichten aus der Kryptowelt
⚡️ Beteilige dich an aktuellen Diskussionen rund um Kryptothemen
💬 Interagiere mit deinen bevorzugten Content-Erstellern
👍 Entdecke für dich interessante Inhalte
E-Mail-Adresse/Telefonnummer