bmks270 said:
So do most Bitcoin holders assume the OG wallet keys are lost or the OG Satoshi is deceased?
Imagine if the early Satoshi wallets started selling.
The Satoshi genesis block rewards are dead. He/they made them unspendable.
Bitcoin on the path to irrelevance?
112,037 Views |
1822 Replies |
Last: 3 days ago by Yukon Cornelius
The Satoshi genesis block rewards are dead. He/they made them unspendable.
Texasrebel is fudding his own bags. He's probably largest btc holder here
bmks270 said:Definitely Not A Cop said:
Bitcoin
HA!
You said buyers. If you owned all the land in the world, you wouldn't have buyers. You would have takers. Same for gold. Bitcoin has more utility than Microsoft stock.
But again, as mentioned previously, it's a pretty silly premise.
bmks270 said:
Thought experiment
Which is more useful.
You will be the only owner in the world.
Owning all the worlds:
Land
Gold (and gold mines)
Microsoft Stock
Bitcoin (and Bitcoin mines)
If you're the single owner, which is most likely to have buyers lined up to purchase?
If you owned all the land you wouldn't need buyers. Everyone in the world would owe you rent.
This is such a stupid argument. No one owns everything of anything. This argument is a manifestation of the stupid mindset that says bitcoin is going to zero.
Block the idiots. They deserved what they will get while the rest of us prosper.
TexasRebel said:
They: Satoshi Nakamoto
Change the genesis block: change the block that the entire blockchain is calculated against
I'm still curious how ol' satoshi would change the genesis block, trebel. I've been assuming you'd written out a long explanation on how that'd be feasible.
If you're thinking Satoshi Nakamoto is a person, that may explain why you trust bitcoin.
If you're thinking they don't have an exit strategy…
It can be changed.
I've pointed out how before.
The effort just has to be worthwhile.
Especially if their goal is to destabilize the world.
If you're thinking they don't have an exit strategy…
It can be changed.
I've pointed out how before.
The effort just has to be worthwhile.
Especially if their goal is to destabilize the world.
Fiat printing destabilizing tbe world. What y'all don't understand when market value goes up for everything people will increase supply. Whether that's new gold mines or new houses etc. you can't increase the total bitcoin supply.
I've watched countless documentaries on Bitcoin and admit I can never seem to wrap my head around it but I do get simple math and watching something go from a previous example of $18,000 to $72,000 seems like quite a win for investors in BTC.
What I don't get, and hopefully someone more well versed on the topic can explain, is why all of the big miners like $MARA and $RIOT have been slipping in the past week or so with BTC hitting all time highs.
I've followed the patterns regularly and the fluctuations have always seemed to correlate pretty well until now as far as I can see.
What I don't get, and hopefully someone more well versed on the topic can explain, is why all of the big miners like $MARA and $RIOT have been slipping in the past week or so with BTC hitting all time highs.
I've followed the patterns regularly and the fluctuations have always seemed to correlate pretty well until now as far as I can see.
Because they have to pay for electricity and there are tons of miners. The more miners, the lower the profit of all miners, because they split all of the mines bitcoin.
Also, the algorithm is going to cut the reward in half soon, so it's going to get tougher to be profitable.
Also, the algorithm is going to cut the reward in half soon, so it's going to get tougher to be profitable.
TexasRebel said:
If you're thinking Satoshi Nakamoto is a person, that may explain why you trust bitcoin.
If you're thinking they don't have an exit strategy…
It can be changed.
I've pointed out how before.
The effort just has to be worthwhile.
Especially if their goal is to destabilize the world.
Your claim is that in the 4000 lines of open source and publicly auditable code lies a backdoor allowing a spooky entity full autonomy to manipulate any aspect of bitcoin, and ignore the consensus rules that creates a public decentralized ledger feasible, and that in 15 years not a soul has found it?
Edit: original code launched was 3000 lines, current codebase is around 650k lines. For reference a Linux kernel has 15M lines of code.
Don't you understand? The NSA can change the bitcoin code whenever they want. I know because I said so.
-texasderrrrrebel
-texasderrrrrebel
Irrelevant trump discussing irrelevant bitcoin
JUST IN: 🇺🇸 Donald Trump tells CNBC he "sometimes will let people pay through #Bitcoin" pic.twitter.com/dhbgB2Xep6
— Bitcoin Magazine (@BitcoinMagazine) March 11, 2024
bmks270 said:
Because they have to pay for electricity and there are tons of miners. The more miners, the lower the profit of all miners, because they split all of the mines bitcoin.
Also, the algorithm is going to cut the reward in half soon, so it's going to get tougher to be profitable.
No their plan is to make people pay more for transactions.
Like Visa.
Only more transparent, and not illegal to hide.
A $10,000,000 pizza will really cost $11,000,000.
TexasRebel said:bmks270 said:
Because they have to pay for electricity and there are tons of miners. The more miners, the lower the profit of all miners, because they split all of the mines bitcoin.
Also, the algorithm is going to cut the reward in half soon, so it's going to get tougher to be profitable.
No their plan is to make people pay more for transactions.
Like Visa.
Only more transparent, and not illegal to hide.
A $10,000,000 pizza will really cost $11,000,000.
The self-regulating structure of bitcoin allows for natural ebbs and flows between mining costs and incentives, transaction costs, and market value of bitcoin relative to energy/hardware prices.
Algorithmic Epiphany said:TexasRebel said:bmks270 said:
Because they have to pay for electricity and there are tons of miners. The more miners, the lower the profit of all miners, because they split all of the mines bitcoin.
Also, the algorithm is going to cut the reward in half soon, so it's going to get tougher to be profitable.
No their plan is to make people pay more for transactions.
Like Visa.
Only more transparent, and not illegal to hide.
A $10,000,000 pizza will really cost $11,000,000.
The self-regulating structure of bitcoin allows for natural ebbs and flows between mining costs and incentives, transaction costs, and market value of bitcoin relative to energy/hardware prices.
So as energy and hardware costs trend toward zero what happens to the so called'market value?'
The funny thing is if the price of BTC stays stable, by its own store-of-value argument, it should be a better performing long-term asset than the government issued currency for which its in primary competition as an asset class.
If you need the price of BTC to go up because it makes you feel cool, or smart, or comfortable explaining your BTC investment to your wife, then you've missed the point
If you need the price of BTC to go up because it makes you feel cool, or smart, or comfortable explaining your BTC investment to your wife, then you've missed the point
Play this one out. What is the worst case if energy costs are negligible?
Even assume BTC == 0, we (or at least someone) has free energy!
This is perhaps the literal best use of "feature, not a bug" I can imagine.
Even assume BTC == 0, we (or at least someone) has free energy!
This is perhaps the literal best use of "feature, not a bug" I can imagine.
tysker said:
The funny thing is if the price of BTC stays stable, by its own store-of-value argument, it should be a better performing long-term asset than the government issued currency for which its in primary competition as an asset class.
If you need the price of BTC to go up because it makes you feel cool, or smart, or comfortable explaining your BTC investment to your wife, then you've missed the point
I'm not sure I understand your position
The price has to go up for it to be holding it's value... simply because the value of the usd is going down.
Ie for the longest time (and still true to my knowledge) gold wasn't keeping up with inflation, so youre taking a risk by owning a commodity (instead of keeping dollars), and its worth basically the same in biden bucks as it was in pre bidenflation dollars.
Bitcoin code can be changed if enough participants agree. It's been updated and forked in the past.
Miners could decide it's more profitable to keep printing instead of capping the total.
It's all game theory based, expect miners to do what's good for them, whether is selfish mining (only requires 33% of the miners) or adding inflation. If they think it will hurt Bitcoin too much then they may not do it out of self preservation.
Miners could decide it's more profitable to keep printing instead of capping the total.
It's all game theory based, expect miners to do what's good for them, whether is selfish mining (only requires 33% of the miners) or adding inflation. If they think it will hurt Bitcoin too much then they may not do it out of self preservation.
This thread getting bumped is always great...
Such a great way to start out the day, watching people cheer for the demise of bitcoin in a bear market and now they are starting to find elaborate ways to defend their beliefs.
Next stop is them scurrying away like roaches as the bitcoin price pumps over the next few months - year.
Show us on the doll how bitcoin hurt you... or you could give up your preconceived prejudices, buy bitcoin and participate in the bull run.
Such a great way to start out the day, watching people cheer for the demise of bitcoin in a bear market and now they are starting to find elaborate ways to defend their beliefs.
Next stop is them scurrying away like roaches as the bitcoin price pumps over the next few months - year.
Show us on the doll how bitcoin hurt you... or you could give up your preconceived prejudices, buy bitcoin and participate in the bull run.
bmks270 said:
Bitcoin code can be changed if enough participants agree. It's been updated and forked in the past.
Miners could decide it's more profitable to keep printing instead of capping the total.
It's all game theory based, expect miners to do what's good for them, whether is selfish mining (only requires 33% of the miners) or adding inflation. If they think it will hurt Bitcoin too much then they may not do it out of self preservation.
Miners aren't big enough (height) to pull it off... and a split fork doesn't require you to participate in their spinoff (bitegold).
Think you need to go back and do some research on this preconceived beliefs here... because you're spreading/ participating in misinformation.
The code of BTC is immutable.
Any changes would result in a fork of the chain, which creates a new thing.
Hard forks don't change Bitcoin.
The odds of a hard fork attracting enough miners/nodes away from BTC to cause harm to BTC are non-zero, but are incredibly low at this stage of the adoption curve. That fact that It's been tried, at a time where the network effect was much less compelling and when adoption was far lower, and failed should tell you something. When was the last time you heard someone talk about Bitcoin Cash in a context other than as an example of a failed experiment?
Any changes would result in a fork of the chain, which creates a new thing.
Hard forks don't change Bitcoin.
The odds of a hard fork attracting enough miners/nodes away from BTC to cause harm to BTC are non-zero, but are incredibly low at this stage of the adoption curve. That fact that It's been tried, at a time where the network effect was much less compelling and when adoption was far lower, and failed should tell you something. When was the last time you heard someone talk about Bitcoin Cash in a context other than as an example of a failed experiment?
“There is no red.
There is no blue.
There is the state.
And there is you.”
“As government expands, Liberty contracts” - R. Reagan
There is no blue.
There is the state.
And there is you.”
“As government expands, Liberty contracts” - R. Reagan
tysker said:Algorithmic Epiphany said:TexasRebel said:bmks270 said:
Because they have to pay for electricity and there are tons of miners. The more miners, the lower the profit of all miners, because they split all of the mines bitcoin.
Also, the algorithm is going to cut the reward in half soon, so it's going to get tougher to be profitable.
No their plan is to make people pay more for transactions.
Like Visa.
Only more transparent, and not illegal to hide.
A $10,000,000 pizza will really cost $11,000,000.
The self-regulating structure of bitcoin allows for natural ebbs and flows between mining costs and incentives, transaction costs, and market value of bitcoin relative to energy/hardware prices.
So as energy and hardware costs trend toward zero what happens to the so called'market value?'
Market value is determined by supply and demand, same as any other commodity.
If cost to do business for a mining company goes down while demand stays the same, it just got more profitable to do business.
If those higher profits attract more miners, everyone gets a smaller pc of the same pot (predetermined in size), thus driving down the value of mining.
There is no problem with this scenario, if you believe there is, then you are misunderstanding the fundamentals...
Not Coach Jimbo said:bmks270 said:
Bitcoin code can be changed if enough participants agree. It's been updated and forked in the past.
Miners could decide it's more profitable to keep printing instead of capping the total.
It's all game theory based, expect miners to do what's good for them, whether is selfish mining (only requires 33% of the miners) or adding inflation. If they think it will hurt Bitcoin too much then they may not do it out of self preservation.
Miners aren't big enough (height) to pull it off... and a split fork doesn't require you to participate in their spinoff (bitegold).
Think you need to go back and do some research on this preconceived beliefs here... because you're spreading/ participating in misinformation.
Nothing is misinformation.
What is SegWit? A soft fork change.
I agree the likelihood of future changes or mass adoption of a hard fork is very low, but it's still non-zero.
These are things I think the Bitcoin advocates brush under the rug and dismiss as impossible, when historically it's not impossible.
Also, there are a few published papers on selfish mining. In some cases it wouldn't be detectable. If one miner has 33% of the hash rate it becomes more profitable to "selfish mine."
I actually haven't seen a counter to why selfish mining isn't possible, so if you have one, please share.
Some miners could collude and selfish mine together. It's game theory. If caught selfish mining what does it mean? Are there regulations against it yet? What's the downside?
I also don't think anyone is likely to selfish mine unless it's like Iran, Russia, and China colluding.
How much bitcoin is a Dyson sphere?
First price and value are two different concepts.Not Coach Jimbo said:tysker said:
The funny thing is if the price of BTC stays stable, by its own store-of-value argument, it should be a better performing long-term asset than the government issued currency for which its in primary competition as an asset class.
If you need the price of BTC to go up because it makes you feel cool, or smart, or comfortable explaining your BTC investment to your wife, then you've missed the point
I'm not sure I understand your position
The price has to go up for it to be holding it's value... simply because the value of the usd is going down.
Ie for the longest time (and still true to my knowledge) gold wasn't keeping up with inflation, so youre taking a risk by owning a commodity (instead of keeping dollars), and its worth basically the same in biden bucks as it was in pre bidenflation dollars.
Secondly, you're assuming a BTC owner will need to convert back into a fiat currency, such as USD. If BTC adoption is broad enough such conversion is not necessary. The price of 1 BTC == 1 BTC.(just ask AE)
We live in a world today where I read some of these Bitcoin influencers on YouTube are making 20-25K a month income just from pushing crypto on their YouTube channel. I read that book 'Going Infinite' by Michael Lewis regarding FTX and SBF's rise and fall and it is hard to not come away with anything but an impression that the crypto stuff is not much more than a huge gambling casino fueled by a new banking universe that is pure wild west. Lewis comments in his book that 'Satoshi Nakamoto' if a person is likely baffled by what his idea actually turned into.
A lot of money is moving from one pocket to another. Some will get rich, some will get ruined. When you have such exorbitant potential returns like this, it is a breeding ground for greed and corruption that rivals anything Wall Street has come up with.
A lot of money is moving from one pocket to another. Some will get rich, some will get ruined. When you have such exorbitant potential returns like this, it is a breeding ground for greed and corruption that rivals anything Wall Street has come up with.
Price is determined by supply and demand. BTC supply is controlled (ie manipulated) by the code.Not Coach Jimbo said:tysker said:Algorithmic Epiphany said:TexasRebel said:bmks270 said:
Because they have to pay for electricity and there are tons of miners. The more miners, the lower the profit of all miners, because they split all of the mines bitcoin.
Also, the algorithm is going to cut the reward in half soon, so it's going to get tougher to be profitable.
No their plan is to make people pay more for transactions.
Like Visa.
Only more transparent, and not illegal to hide.
A $10,000,000 pizza will really cost $11,000,000.
The self-regulating structure of bitcoin allows for natural ebbs and flows between mining costs and incentives, transaction costs, and market value of bitcoin relative to energy/hardware prices.
So as energy and hardware costs trend toward zero what happens to the so called'market value?'
Market value is determined by supply and demand, same as any other commodity.
If cost to do business for a mining company goes down while demand stays the same, it just got more profitable to do business.
If those higher profits attract more miners, everyone gets a smaller pc of the same pot (predetermined in size), thus driving down the value of mining.
There is no problem with this scenario, if you believe there is, then you are misunderstanding the fundamentals...
AE's ananlysis suggests that there is a correlation between energy prices and BTC.
How many BTC could be mined over the next five years if we didn't have the current restrictionist energy production regimes in place?Algorithmic Epiphany said:
How much bitcoin is a Dyson sphere?
bmks270 said:Not Coach Jimbo said:bmks270 said:
Bitcoin code can be changed if enough participants agree. It's been updated and forked in the past.
Miners could decide it's more profitable to keep printing instead of capping the total.
It's all game theory based, expect miners to do what's good for them, whether is selfish mining (only requires 33% of the miners) or adding inflation. If they think it will hurt Bitcoin too much then they may not do it out of self preservation.
Miners aren't big enough (height) to pull it off... and a split fork doesn't require you to participate in their spinoff (bitegold).
Think you need to go back and do some research on this preconceived beliefs here... because you're spreading/ participating in misinformation.
Nothing is misinformation.
What is SegWit? A soft fork change.
I agree the likelihood of future changes or mass adoption of a hard fork is very low, but it's still non-zero.
These are things I think the Bitcoin advocates brush under the rug and dismiss as impossible, when historically it's not impossible.
Also, there are a few published papers on selfish mining. In some cases it wouldn't be detectable. If one miner has 33% of the hash rate it becomes more profitable to "selfish mine."
I actually haven't seen a counter to why selfish mining isn't possible, so if you have one, please share.
Some miners could collude and selfish mine together. It's game theory. If caught selfish mining what does it mean? Are there regulations against it yet? What's the downside?
I also don't think anyone is likely to selfish mine unless it's like Iran, Russia, and China colluding.
I don't think anyone dismisses a fork as impossible. It's one of the easiest things to do, fork bitcoin.
What's hard is gaining mining and user consensus that the fork is BITCOIN and not some ****coin. If you gave a **** about your argument you'd research the Blocksize wars figure out it's all been played out. Changes aren't bad. Changes without consensus (taxes without representation) is bad, bitcoin cannot be changes without consensus.
Tysker,
When we are all Dyson sphere'ing transhumanist cyborgs we may not need bitcoin because something because we are borg.
Pumpkinhead said:
We live in a world today where I read some of these Bitcoin influencers on YouTube are making 20-25K a month income just from pushing crypto on their YouTube channel. I read that book 'Going Infinite' by Michael Lewis regarding FTX and SBF's rise and fall and it is hard to not come away with anything but an impression that the crypto stuff is not much more than a huge gambling casino fueled by a new banking universe that is pure wild west. Lewis comments in his book that 'Satoshi Nakamoto' if a person is likely baffled by what his idea actually turned into.
A lot of money is moving from one pocket to another. Some will get rich, some will get ruined. When you have such exorbitant potential returns like this, it is a breeding ground for greed and corruption that rivals anything Wall Street has come up with.
What other bitcoin or crypto books have you read?
But you've laid out the case why we have bitcoin maximalists, try the Bitcoin Standard next.
About the same (difficulty adjustments)
I disagree.Algorithmic Epiphany said:
About the same (difficulty adjustments)
But if accurate, it indicates the supply of BTC has no significant difference relative to the underlying energy usage. It can't be a positive (pro-BTC) or negative (anti-BTC) factor toward BTC. And thus, it's not going to be reflected in the Price.
So, the same question remains: what's the value proposition?