eric76 said:

---

Is there any more inefficient method of doing this than how bitcoin does it?

Think about it. For every mined block, 3.125 bitcoins are issued. At the current approximately $61,000 per bitcoin, that is a cost of $190,625 per block. Isn't there something like a megabyte of data per block?

$190,625 per megabyte is ridiculous.

According to one site I found, https://charts.bitbo.io/blocks-daily/ , there is approximately 150 blocks per day. In other words, the cost is $28,593,750 per day! To process and store an additional 150 megabytes of data per day!

That's absurd.

---

Not sure if this is a troll (if so, well done), but that's not the right way to think about the cost of mining.

The cost of mining is essentially the cost of contributing hash to the network, which is mostly a function of your power price input and the power efficiency of your mining units.

ac04 said:

---

people who are bitter that they didn't buy bitcoin when they first heard about it and aren't humble enough to correct their mistake

---

About 8 years ago I was at my college roommates house to go to a Metallica concert. His then 16 year old son was there and he wouldn't stop talking about bitcoin that he was investing his summer work money into it. So I asked him some pointed questions, and brought up tulip bulbs and his mom gets onto me....he's only 16...did you forget he's not (college roommate) because they look alike


Fast forward about 5 years later and my old roommate tells me his son cleared a quarter million.

So I'm a humble investor this go around. About 2% of total portfolio. If i lose it all ok. If it goes up 20X, great

ac04 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

ac04 said:

---

TTUArmy said:

---

What would crypto investors/users say are some of the biggest sticking points or obstacles for large scale adoption by the general public?

I'm aware it's been around awhile. And, I was really taken by the idea of currencies operating outside of the prying eyes of government. Will admit that I even dabbled in it myself to be familiar with the functionality. The complexity in learning curve is certainly there for new users.

When BTC was turned into, what I would consider, a hedge tool by large institutions, I didn't rejoice like many others. I'm a physical precious metals investor, so I understand all too well the manipulation angle.

So, what would you guys say keeps more people from buying in to crypto?

---

i find people who haven't jumped in yet generally fall into at least one of four categories

1) statists who believe that only governments can create money
2) people who believe what the TV tells them RE: boiling the oceans, use by criminals, bitcoin getting "hacked" etc.
3) people who haven't yet figured out that fiat is broken because they're doing ok
4) people who are bitter that they didn't buy bitcoin when they first heard about it and aren't humble enough to correct their mistake

sadly the vast majority of the general population is not intellectually curious at all, so few are willing to put in the work to understand what bitcoin is and why its important. if it can't be explained to them in a 30 second tiktok they're out.

---

Is there any more inefficient method of doing this than how bitcoin does it?

Think about it. For every mined block, 3.125 bitcoins are issued. At the current approximately $61,000 per bitcoin, that is a cost of $190,625 per block. Isn't there something like a megabyte of data per block?

$190,625 per megabyte is ridiculous.

According to one site I found, https://charts.bitbo.io/blocks-daily/ , there is approximately 150 blocks per day. In other words, the cost is $28,593,750 per day! To process and store an additional 150 megabytes of data per day!

That's absurd.

---

$190k is not the cost to mine a block, its the reward. you are very confused.

---

They money has to come from somewhere. My suspicion is that it is paid by those who have bitcoin by a reduction in the value of their bitcoins.

ac04 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

With a bank website, if I lost my password, I can go to the bank and change it.

If I had bitcoin and lost my password, I would lose all my money.

---

correct, bitcoin is a bearer instrument. just like gold and cash. very good.

---

Forgetting your password or losing your wallet is like what? Throwing silver and gold over the side of a ship into the Mariana's Trench?

Mathematically, the bitcoin mining concept is quite simple.

The mining itself is made computationally intensive to force the miners to do large amounts of work to find an acceptable hash.

There could be many ways to do this. The one chosen involves taking a hash of a hash of the data appended with extra data until a hash is found with at least X zeroes in the hash. I think that the particular hash used is SHA-256.

Logically, bitcoin is more of a demonstration of how it could be done. It is not a demonstration of how to do it efficiently or cost effectively.

Amazing how far we've advanced as a financial industry.

The future of money takes the equivalent of hiding your cash under the mattress (or burying it in your yard) to keep it totally secure.

ac04 said:

---

it's not supposed to be efficient or cost effective. the high cost to mine bitcoin is the network's defense budget.

---

It indicates a poor design choice.

Strictly speaking, at the conditions of the time, the cost to mine bitcoin would have been pretty low since the requirements for finding a valid hash would be much lower and the "value" of the bitcoins received were correspondingly lower. Conditions have changed, but it doesn't adapt except for a pre-planned reduction in the number of bitcoins received for mining a block (now 3.125).

What happens when there is no more bitcoin to mine. How can it be sold or bought

ac04 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

ac04 said:

---

it's not supposed to be efficient or cost effective. the high cost to mine bitcoin is the network's defense budget.

---

It indicates a poor design choice.

Strictly speaking, at the conditions of the time, the cost to mine bitcoin would have been pretty low since the requirements for finding a valid hash would be much lower and the "value" of the bitcoins received were correspondingly lower. Conditions have changed, but it doesn't adapt except for a pre-planned reduction in the number of bitcoins received for mining a block (now 3.125).

---

it was not a poor design choice at all, it was 100% intentional. decentralization and security are two of the most important features of bitcoin.

and actually it does adapt every two weeks via the difficulty adjustment.

---

It's basically an experiment with a great many lab rats running around thinking it is glorious.

You are right that the difficulty adjustment is a bit of an adaption, but only affecting one part of the experiment.

I can think for myself. Unlike some here, I am not easily drawn into fads like bitcoin.

Anyone else getting into the RCOF pre-sale? https://rcofinance.com/

anyone watch the Bitcoin "expose" on HBO last night about who Satoshi Nakamoto really is?

maybe I'm not technical enough, but it was both a snoozefest and a stretch IMHO

yes i watched. waste of time. the most entertaining part was peter todd laughing in hoback's face while he was doing his big reveal that he thought todd was satoshi. why not just admit you couldn't figure it out?

I actually thought the evidence at the end was compelling. So did a couple of my friends. Why did you all not?

It all points to Peter Todd. He clearly wrote the post thinking he was logged into the satoshi account in my opinion. And then he and satoshi both disappeared soon after that. Plus, Satoshi spells words like Canadians, used the word ******ed, programmed like Todd would've done back in the day, etc etc.

And when Peter Todd said that he and Adam decided it would be better for Peter not to work at Blockstream, Adam gave him a wtf look, like why are you mentioning that. Bc what reason would there be for Peter not working at blockstream unless he was satoshi?

Not saying it's definitely Peter Todd but there's certainly a lot of smoke. And the reactions of both Peter and Adam seemed like they thought the doc filmer was getting very close to the truth (especially Adam).

Obviously the hardcore bitcoiners are going to say the doc was bull**** bc it's somewhat disastrous if satoshi's identity is discovered because the satoshi coins are not burned. But I think the evidence points to Peter Todd being satoshi and then the blockstream crew helping develop it.

Lmao I'm sorry it's not compelling at all. Peter Todd pedantically following up on a Satoshi post several hours later as evidence is just laughable.

Even in the doc he was laughing at how dumb it was they were actually considering he was Satoshi.

Satoshi was Hal Finney who died years ago of ALS.

So your response is that Peter was nervously laughing, which is exactly what he would do if he was caught? And you just laugh off the post that clearly was made as if the Perer Todd poster was continuing the satoshi post. What about the other evidence?

I guess there is no point in discussing if all you are going to do is laugh off any evidence they brought up in the film and the reactions of Peter and Adam in the film.

Again, I'm not saying that he's definitely satoshi. But to act like there was no evidence is a little ridiculous.

What's the evidence for Finney? Genuinely curious. I've owned bitcoin for a long time, so I'm not some anti bitcoin guy hoping that satoshi is discovered. But I think it's an interesting discussion and would like to hear viewpoints other than just laughing off certain facts with no discussion.

the central piece of "evidence" is speculation that the guy with the best opsec in the history of the internet accidentally posted something on a message board with the wrong account.

There was more to it than just that. But I agree that there isn't a smoking gun. It's all circumstantial evidence, but the circumstantial evidence does point to Peter. At the very least, it's very coincidental if Peter was not satoshi given all the circumstantial evidence they brought up. And Peter had no explanation for any of it when questioned about it. He just resorts to laughing and resorting to his meta game theory comments. The fact that he has no explanations whatsoever, and was clearly caught lying about some stuff (for example, he lied about not knowing c++, etc), is the biggest red flag in my opinion.

I went in with very low expectations and figured everything in the documentary would be ridiculous bull***** But after watching, they at least had more than what I was expecting.

he's a goofball programmer/libertarian. He thinks it's funny to troll everyone and go back and forth about being Satoshi or not.

i went in with very low expectations and was still disappointed. its not surprising at all to me that a cypherpunk made efforts to cover his tracks online. or that he laughed at someone he had determined was an idiot.

there wasn't anything in the documentary that presented a compelling case that todd is satoshi. to me it seemed like a documentary maker spent 3 years trying to figure out who satoshi is, couldn't come up with anything, and went with the guy he had the most footage of to work with.

mavsfan4ever said:

---

So your response is that Peter was nervously laughing, which is exactly what he would do if he was caught? And you just laugh off the post that clearly was made as if the Perer Todd poster was continuing the satoshi post. What about the other evidence?

I guess there is no point in discussing if all you are going to do is laugh off any evidence they brought up in the film and the reactions of Peter and Adam in the film.

Again, I'm not saying that he's definitely satoshi. But to act like there was no evidence is a little ridiculous.

What's the evidence for Finney? Genuinely curious. I've owned bitcoin for a long time, so I'm not some anti bitcoin guy hoping that satoshi is discovered. But I think it's an interesting discussion and would like to hear viewpoints other than just laughing off certain facts with no discussion.

---

There's no actual hard evidence in the documentary Peter Todd is satoshi. Most people might react strange or nervous if somebody is basically accusing you of being some mysterious historical figure worth tens of billions of dollars.

Finney was the recipient of the first bitcoin transaction and is probably the leading candidate. Although there is decent enough evidence for a good half dozen other people being Satoshi before peter todd.

mavsfan4ever said:

---

So your response is that Peter was nervously laughing, which is exactly what he would do if he was caught? And you just laugh off the post that clearly was made as if the Perer Todd poster was continuing the satoshi post. What about the other evidence?

I guess there is no point in discussing if all you are going to do is laugh off any evidence they brought up in the film and the reactions of Peter and Adam in the film.

Again, I'm not saying that he's definitely satoshi. But to act like there was no evidence is a little ridiculous.

What's the evidence for Finney? Genuinely curious. I've owned bitcoin for a long time, so I'm not some anti bitcoin guy hoping that satoshi is discovered. But I think it's an interesting discussion and would like to hear viewpoints other than just laughing off certain facts with no discussion.

---

Imagine, being accused of holding 1.1M Bitcoin (the worlds most liquid asset) and not getting nervous at the thought of 8B people all thinking about how much violence would be necessary to gain access to it?

Nervous laughing would be what any sane individual would do when HBO accuses you of being a person capable of accessing untold amounts of Bitcoin to the world.

Hope everyone is enjoying memecoin season. its been wild

Am holding a lot of Doge which has been a dog and just Toshi on base.

So yea I missed it left out of the stadium.

Just learned Coinbase is going to stop supporting payroll direct deposits in November. Kind of sucks. Do we know why?

Bitcoin is not real money. Only the state can make money. You guys are lost and this technology will die.