1 Bitcoin = $1,000,000 USD
21 Million Bitcoins = $21,000,000,000,000 ($21 Trillion USD)
You know that this is impossible to happen even the richest man in the world does not even have that much money. I am sure that you will not be able to earn that much money with Bitcoin. Obvious signature spammer is obvious. |
|
|
|
Here is one I like: https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-price/Just google "Bitcoin Price" and look at all of your options. I also have an ap on my phone. Just search for "Bitcoin Price" on your phone ap store and load a free ap. Is using search engines really that hard? |
|
|
|
I knew that Bitcoin would increase my temps. My computer is semi-new and I haven't done much full load testing, but Bitcoin makes my machine rise 20-25 degrees C. It's still safe, at 57...but just curious. Do you all run Bitcoin 24/7, and if so, is it bad to run at 100% usage, at such a temp, whenever the computer is on? I've played games or used certain programs with high load for a while, but never thought it would be healthy to support higher temps non-stop.
Question: It sounds like you are trying to mine Bitcoins with your computer. Is that what you are trying to do? |
|
|
|
several things would happen that would mess up your predictions
1) ASIC manufacturers would not be able to supply enough ASICs, so ASICs would become really expensive. Also there would be quite a large waiting time for ASICs to be delivered because of the high demand. (ASICs need to be physically produced, you can't just create petahashes worth of miners out of thin air, they need to be build, this takes time and money).
This is a good point. The ASICs would become more expensive due to the supply issues - until the supply issues are sorted out. This would cause the power consumption to not be as bad as predicted - until the supply issues are sorted out. This is why I said $75 million per hour would drive the mining to attempt to use 675 GW 2) If somehow there would suddenly come more miners (there won't because of point 1) and they would consume significantly more power, then power would become more expensive world-wide. Most people would try to limit their power usage. Governments might even try to subsidize plans to use less power, or if it's really extreme they might enforce policies to limit power usage. This may or may not be paired with an increased surge in renewable energy.
If mining were to produce $75,000,000 per hour you would see a Bitcoin mining rush unlike anything we have ever seen. Everyone and their grandmother would become interested in and attempt to mine. I agree with your first point that this would cause a short term supply issue with mining equipment but disagree: everyone would want to mine and there would be a lot more people trying to mine with any "pick and shovel" they can get their hands on. Yes, a sudden increase in the consumption of energy would drive the prices higher so the formula given would need to be adjusted, perhaps making the cost of energy (c) a function instead of a constant. As a side effect of the much higher prices for energy, yes, the very expensive renewable sources could become more viable. So, a huge demand for energy for the Bitcoin network may be good for the renewable energy sector as it burns through all our non-renewable sources. 3) More energy efficient ASICs would be produced, and the research for more efficient chips would be accelerated because of high demand for energy-efficient chips. Because of the vast amounts of wealth ASIC manufactures now have, they would buy up companies like IBM, Nvidea and Intel to benefit from their expertise in making energy efficient hardware. ASICs and computer hardware would be increasingly efficient, although computer components might be developed more slowly because most research is now in ASICs.
No. By design, mining equipment efficiency has no effect on the total amount of energy the Bitcoin network attempts to consume. Mining equipment efficiency only affects the difficulty - not overall power consumption. |
|
|
|
We cannot/do not want to get to $1,000,000 or even $500,000 per BTC any time soon unless there is hyperinflation and the dollar were to lose most of its value. In other words the only way we are going to get to $1,000,000 or even $500,000 if for that many USD to be worth what $1,000 or $500 is worth today in terms of purchasing power. Here is the math behind it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=694401.0If BTC were to go to $500,000 in this era it would cause a catastrophic mining bubble: $500,000 x 25 = $12,500,000 per block = $75,000,000 per hour$75 million per hour would drive the mining to attempt to use 675 GW. This is about 30% of all the power generated on the planet. So, in order to keep our power consumption under about 2% of world wide power production, we cannot/do not want the price to get to $500,000 before era 6, which is about 2033 or so. Using my previously derived formula for the power consumption: P = (6(50/2 e) + f)(x)(1 - g)/c [kW] where: x = exchange rate [USD/BTC] e = era [0..32] (we are currently in era 1) f = average fees per hour [BTC/hour] c = cost of energy [USD/kWh] g = average gross profit margin [unitless ratio] we can look at the power consumption in each era assuming a price of $500,000 per BTC. In order to make it simple I will make the following assumptions: x = $500,000 per BTC f = fees per hour will keep the coinbase above 6 BTC/hour (1 BTC/block) in all eras c = $0.10 per kWh g = 0.1 miner gross profit margin Original target Subsidy Est Fees Power % of total world
Era starting year BTC/block BTC/hour GW power production
--- --------------- ----------- ---------- ----- ----------------
0 2009 50.00000000 0.00000000 1,350 58.41%
1 2013 25.00000000 0.00000000 675 29.20%
2 2017 12.50000000 0.00000000 337 14.60%
3 2021 6.25000000 0.00000000 169 7.30%
4 2025 3.12500000 0.00000000 84 3.65%
5 2029 1.56250000 0.00000000 42 1.83%
6 2033 0.78125000 1.31250000 27 1.17%
7 2037 0.39062500 3.65625000 27 1.17%
8 2041 0.19531250 4.82812500 27 1.17%
9 2045 0.09765625 5.41406250 27 1.17%
|
|
|
|
|
Why on earth would you want to ruin a perfectly good privacy and fungibility supporting wallet and keypair chain with the inclusion of one or more privacy killing vanity addresses?
These two things do not mix. Best to completely get rid of the vanity addresses and use your HD wallet properly.
|
|
|
|
You started using this address 2015-04-11 02:39:06 The most recent transaction is on 2015-05-23 12:32:42 when you spent the final 0.381 BTC from this address. The address currently contains no BTC. So, during the time you have used this addresses you have received and spent a total of 53.47577346 BTC in 268 separate transactions. It looks like your entire wallet contains the following addresses: https://www.walletexplorer.com/wallet/03c2dc44b8f205b2/addressesAnd the sum of all the outputs on all those addresses is currently zero. There are a lot of coins going in and out of your wallet. The highest balance you have had is about 3.85 BTC and as I said this wallet currently contains 0 BTC. Did I answer your question or do you have a more specific question? |
|
|
|
|
This thread is full of misconceptions about power consumption.
1) The source of the power (coal, nuclear, solar, natural gas) does not matter when calculating the total power consumed by the system. What matters is the cost of the power. If solar power ever cost less than coal - taking all costs into consideration - then people would use it. It is that simple. The reason people do not use solar power it that it currently costs more.
2) Efficiency of mining does not matter. If mining equipment becomes more efficient then people will just use more mining equipment.
3) This is all by design. The amount of power used is exactly what makes it difficult/impossible for someone rewrite transactions.
The power consumption of the Bitcoin network can be estimated by my previously derived formula:
P = (6(50/2e) + f)(x)(1 - g)/c [kW]
where:
x = exchange rate [USD/BTC]
e = era [0..32] (we are currently in era 1)
f = average fees per hour [BTC/hour]
c = cost of energy [USD/kWh]
g = average gross profit margin [unitless ratio]
Just plug in your favorite guesses for the year 2020:
How much do you think BTC will be worth in 2020? $100? $1,000? $10,000?
Which era do you want to estimate for? (We are currently in era 1, almost in era 2, 2020 could be era 2 or 3)
What do you think the average fees per hour are going to be in 2020? 1 BTC/hr? 10 BTC/hr? 100 BTC/hr?
Do you think the cost of electricity is going to go down, be the same, or go up by 2020? $0.01/kWh, $0.03/kWh, $0.10/kWh?
What is the average gross profit margin of the miners (portion of all income not spent on electricity costs: equipment, salaries, rents, accounting, ROI, etc.)? You can use this number to approximate amortized equipment costs. 0.10? 0.25? 0.5?
Have fun.
|
|
|
|
I would be honest: i've some doubt abount your identity. 
All your trust are from 2013 and your last post before restart was in 2014 .
Could you explain? It seems that you have bought this account from previous user. I had the same doubt up thread. Please read the thread. He explained it to me. |
|
|
|
|
It would be a total PITA but it would be theoretically possible to steer your transactions to certain mining pools and avoid others.
However, this would not solve your issue since, unless the miners you don't like tell you which pool(s) they use, you have no idea which pools the miners you do not like are using.
And if you did know, and only used pools they did not, if they know your sweet transaction fees are headed to certain pools there is really nothing you can do to prevent them from jumping to the pool with your fees.
The best you could do, and it still will not work, is to create your own pool and attempt to only include miners you like and exclude the miners you do not like. Of course there is really no way to to that either.
So you are basically SOL and back to the first answer in this thread.
The question for you is: since Bitcoin is designed specifically to prevent the type of market manipulation you desire, why are you using Bitcoin?
If you want a controlled and manipulated form of money then use government issued fiat.
|
|
|
|
This does not apply to the Legacy wallet. You said:
Hi burtw
HkJKLwAiDDBAZFWoftaZoJXQMryHewUUe this address is coming in pop up windows
How can i get the private key i think i am using the new version of blockchain.info as i cant see import/export options there
i am thinking to export it to eletrum but i need private key for that
And:
Hi burt
i am using blockchain legacy wallet
account made 1 week ago and that was the first TX
and still nothing in my account
Which is it? You also said that customer support replied they would help you. Mandrik (Blockchain) May 30, 10:43 I'd like to look into this further, but unfortunately I'm going to require the password for the wallet. This isn't something we ask for under any normal condition, but without it I won't be able to look any further into this issue. Before doing this please move all funds from this wallet to a new wallet, and be sure to never use any addresses within your old wallet ever again. You can create a new wallet here - https://blockchain.info/wallet/#/signup. Be sure to record the new password and identifier. If we are able to locate these funds then let us know a new bitcoin address you would like for us to send them to. Thanks, I am not able to help you since you do not understand and are not able to answer fundamental questions about your account. I suggest you use technical support as I am not able to help you. |
|
|
|
You realized that even if implemented the proposal would not affect your coins at all (unless you personally have coins on a pay to public key address), right? So, your statement: If someone had my coins destroyed for any reason, I would try my best to seek and destroy them!  makes no sense in the context of the proposal being discussed in this thread. Sorry, but it looked like you jumped into the thread, read only the title and then left a comment. If you actually read the thread then I apologize. Can you see that in light of the fact your coins are not affected even if the proposal is implemented it appears that you did not read the thread and you do not understand the proposal? |
|
|
|
No
Mining will run on mining fees
If you want to spend, just pay a small fee,
Since we already have over 2 transactions per second (and reached the limit of what the current bkocksize can support) by the time block rewards become really small we will probabkh have 1000s of transactions per second. Even if the fees are really low, the miners will make lots of money from fees.
The block rewards are supposed to be a subsidy for miners to help them in the early days where the transaction fees aren't enough to make mining profitable. The network is expected and supposed to grow to sustain itself.
I highly doubt the fees will be enough to keep companies mining BTC... I highly doubt the economics run that direction. It is true that if fees do not rise then companies will not mine therefore fees will rise in order to keep companies mining BTC. |
|
|
|
If I recall correctly, in this case the judge ruled that "for the purposes of this trial we will consider Bitcoin a security" thus leaving open the question what Bitcoin really is in the grand scheme of things, the ruling just applied to Trendon's trial. My attorney expected the judge to rule that "for the purposes of this trial we will consider Bitcoins money" so that trading Bitcoins on localbitcoins.com could be considered "money transmittal", and we can fully expect the judge in this case to do the same. It would be a great surprise if the judge sided with the defense. I do not know about this particular judge but most judges are former prosecutors and almost always side with their buddies and former colleagues in the prosecution department. |
|
|
|
I have a great idea...Theymos should be destroyed!  If someone had my coins destroyed for any reason, I would try my best to seek and destroy them! Did you read the thread? No. Do you have any idea what is being discussed? No. Are you just another lazy ass signature campaign spammer with a purchased account? Looks like it. |
|
|
|
P.S
Zero (0) Rage here, Just decreasing my risk adjusted rage to hedge against risk and I encourage others to do so.
BurtW, you are one of the most respectable people I respect on this forum and if I had I money, I would help you in any situation because you are a legitimate person asking for financial help. I would never treat you with ANY disrespect but can you see from a perspective how this amount is a little out of there? This is seriously kind of unreasonable that is way out of there, this is quite a crazy amount to as for this. Any one is free to fulfill this loan if feel comfortable.
Thanks for that. I really appreciate it. I agree with you that we all need to be very careful and suspicious here on these forums. They are filled with people that are only here to scam in any way they can. And they are always coming up with new ways to do it! I also agree burnside is asking for a hell of a lot of BTC. Keep your guard up, and make sure you are dealing with reputable people. That is way easier to say than to do. As you may know I have been around the block myself - scammed out of thousands of Bitcoins by someone I actually met in person and trusted. He turned out to be one of the biggest scammers ever on this forum. He is in jail now but that is little consolation to the many very experienced Bitcoiners he was able to scam. I learned a lot from that experience and hope I can avoid that same mistake in the future. |
|
|
|
Please re-read these instructions and do everything I suggested, especially the "Archived" tab:
Legacy wallet is much easier:
Go to the "Receive Money" tab. Is the Bitcoin Address you asked them to use listed there? In other words is the destination Bitcoin address listed there on the "Receive Money" tab? If not check "Archived" and see if it is listed there. If it is not listed in either of those places you are out of luck. If it is listed then it should work - I have never seen it not work or heard of it not working.
If it is listed then you should be able to click on it and see the transaction.
If the address 1HkJKLwAiDDBAZFWoftaZoJXQMryHewUUe is not in your "Received Money" tab or in the "Archived" tab where did you get this address? |
|
|
|
Good job BurtW!....I was worried about his post right above yours but I didn't want to interject so as not to make things more confusing. I have a question: did the original poster get his situation resolved? I noticed that he hasn't visited the forum for awhile yet the transaction hasn't moved. I have not heard from the original poster either. beel's coins are safe on the address he gave. Now we just need to make sure he has the private key for that address. |
|
|
|
‘Guinea Pig’ Money Laundering Case May Decide Bitcoin’s Legal StatusIs it possible to be laundering money with Bitcoin if it’s not legally considered money? A court case in Florida may be about to give us an answer. The by-now infamous case concerns Michel Espinoza, a young computer programmer and early bitcoin trader arrested in January 2014, and later charged with dealing in currency without a money transmitter license and attempted money-laundering. READ MORE >>> https://news.bitcoin.com/laundering-case-bitcoin-legal-status/ Wow. My attorney told me that the defense that "Bitcoin is not money" had little or no legal merit. We had planned to try it anyway if my case had gone to trial. However, since the criminal charges against me and the separate civil charges against all all my property they seized were dropped and my case never went to trial we never got to try this argument. It will be very interesting to see how the judge will rule. Normally they just rule "for the purposes of this trial we will consider Bitcoin [money or a security or property (circle one)] and not try to define what it actually is" and they do not bother to decide the broader definition. |
|
|
|
...
Once you fork for this reason (or any other) it is no longer Bitcoin - it is an alt coin. Everyone that wants to continue the cap will continue on the Bitcoin protocol just fine. Everyone that want to use the newly created alt coin will use it until it falls to the wayside and loses all value just like a vast majority of all alt coins do.
It almost sounds like you're saying that every hardfork (even with 99% or 100% support) will create an altcoin. If this was the case, the "real" Bitcoin died long time ago (as we had 2 hardforks already) and what we have now is an altcoin with hijacked name. Let's get the our terminology straight: If 100% agree with a change and follow it then it is a change, not a fork. A fork will imply that some percentage of people follow the protocol change and the rest do not. Do you really think anyone is running the protocol as it was before the two changes you describe above? No, those were/are changes that everyone followed. What is described in this thread would be a very controversial change that would not be followed by 100% of the miners and nodes. I do claim that as long as there is some percentage of holdouts running the capped protocol and calling it Bitcoin - that is Bitcoin since the cap is one of the most fundamental parameters of the protocol. The portion of miners and nodes that split off to form a cap-less alt coin protocol would not be Bitcoin as long as there is a viable Bitcoin (capped) protocol running. That is what I meant, that is my story, and I am sticking to it. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
