At today's prices, it would take somewhat over 100 BTC to make a million USD. 100 BTC in silver would be over a third of a ton. Good luck hoisting that in your Bug Out Bag.

Today, tut, Today. Do try to keep up.



So... ::bzzzt!:: wrong! Again.

More telling, however, is your lack of response to the following:
# of pools required to make over 50% on BTC today: 3 - BTC.com 28.47%, F2Pool 13.19%, Poolin 11.81%

Kinda belies the absurdity of your 'bubut muh BSV mining centralization as compared to BTC', amirite?

As long as there are no structural barriers for new entrants to the space of non-mining, fully-validating clients (i.e., what you so blithely mis-refer to as 'full nodes'), the network is exactly as decentralized as it need be. It's not as if having lots of non-mining, fully-validating clients actually provides any benefit to the network at large.

As far as mining:
# of pools required to make over 50% on BTC today: 3 - BTC.com 28.47%, F2Pool 13.19%, Poolin 11.81%
# of pools required to make over 50% on BSV today: 5 - Coingeek 27.08%, Mempool 11.81%, SVPool 6.25%, Dpool 4.17%, BMG Pool 3.47%
So... ::bzzzt!:: wrong! Again.

Well, I'm no theologian. But that sounds looney. I thought a central tenet of theism -- each such -- posits an absolute unyielding truth. This notion is incompatible with the notion of an evolving religion.

Though that may only serve to illustrate the stretch of your Bitcoin as religion analogy.

Of course, Bitcoin is allowed to evolve. (permissionless, anyone?) However, one is also free to question the wisdom of an evolving Bitcoin. I think it very unwise. At least in the absence of any proven defects. You seem to think others are smarter than Satoshi, and have understanding of the tradeoffs better than does s/he. Perhaps. Perhaps not.


The white paper does not need to be divinely inspired in order for it to describe the most optimal solution for this space. Again, in the absence of proven defects...

May be no way of knowing what Satoshi intended. However, we do know what Satoshi initially bequeathed us (haha - bequeathed - almost like religion again:) ). And we know that BSV is much closer to that than is BTC. And getting closer with each release.

Only in the same sense as you yourself can be considered as a specific sequence of cytoseine, guanine, adenine, and thymine, as an input to ribosomes.

You must be new here.

Bitcoin does not need to be a 'single currency for the entire world' for increasingly large fractions of people in each corner of the world to awaken to the fact that a weightless, invisible, uncensorable, uninflatable, unconfiscatable form of money is A Good Thing.


Hmmm. Good thing Bitcoin is ever so much more than merely 'a software'.

Nope, not really always. But twice in a week or two just kinda stuck out.

XD

Easy to see. The figure I found for above-ground gold was approx 10 Billion oz. I just 'rounded' it to 10.5B in order to divide neater into Bitcoin's 21M eventual count. So there's item 1. I don't know whether your 7.3B is any closer to the truth than is my 10.5B. And for the purposes of this sort of blue-sky figuring, I posit that it really doesn't matter.

I assume the rest of the discrepancy is in the $/oz for gold. When I ran the figures, gold was enjoying a local peak of $1600. I don't see the value you used.

I don't know why I always seem to see an ironic pun regarding your username in your posts.

...and we were doing so well...

If we are to assume that appreciation in Bitcoin price comes in large part from cannibalization of gold market, you have 3. & 4. reversed.

Early musings:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=152944.0

$800K assumes static gold valuation. If bitcoin purchases are funded by gold sales, the napkinback figures say $400K crossover.

And you can count on that. Time after time.

Yes. 'Bitcoin' has always been part of the name 'Bitcoin SV' - is that a tautology? And yes, we proponents of SV intend to keep it there. As long as it takes for the world at large to recognize that Bitcoin SV is the Bitcoiniest of the Bitcoins. At which point the world at large will come to refer to it as simply 'Bitcoin', relegating the then-to-be-unpopular BTC to the name of 'Bitcoin Segwit', 'Bitcoin Core', or whatever other appellation it manages to conjure up with any amount of stickiness.


While I hold no knowledge of the Satoshiness of CSW, I must cede your point that it is likely that at least some of the market perception of BSV is driven by that very question. Though OTOH, this may work against the acceptance of this chain rather than for it. What with all the Craig Derangement Syndrome endemic to this space.


Of course it does. SV is the Bitcoiniest of all the Bitcoins.


Knock yourself out, brotherman (or brotherwoman ... sisterwoman...).


Yet here you are, yammering away in a dedicated SV thread. One might almost think that it ... ummm ... mattered to you.

Well, no. First, 14TB is not the current sweet spot in $/TB. And there is certainly no requirement for RAID. The first source I checked shows NAS-class 4TB HDDs for under a hunnert*. Probably can get it down to $1200 with a half-hour's investment, but we'll go with $1400. Not off by an order of magnitude, but significant.

This year. If we get 52.6TB of blockchain this year, it'll surprise everyone. And likely be reflected in the price that the utility of such storage is worth. At which point $1400 will be trivial to anyone who buys a $165 BSV today. But that's just this year.

If it is only next year that we reach 52.6TB -- still unlikely -- that'll be less than $900 in storage costs.

Will we hit that the following year? Maybe. Maybe $600 high side cost estimate. Trending towards trivial.

And costs will only continue to go down from there.

More importantly, with an average tx size of 250 bytes, the system could support more than 200 Billion txs in that 52.6TB.

Yes, in order to store every economic transaction generated by all humans, one will need storage. Get over it. Kind of goes hand-in-hand with the actual utility provided to humanity.

Incidentally, I don't think your 52.6TB figure is rooted in reality. What were your assumptions?

And I'll acknowledge that with the price of data on the blockchain being low, the average tx size will likely be much greater than current. So 200 Billion tx is a stretch. Think of it as a high side bound. Whatevs.

*https://www.newegg.com/p/N82E16822236599

False.


While unknowable a priori, that is quite unlikely.


False.


Well, you're batting zero for three in your stated criteria. So... ::bzzzt!:: wrong! It's the most Bitcoiniest of the Bitcoins. At least from the standpoint of the design of the protocol itself. The only legitimate claim BTC/Segwit/Core has on the title is popularity. Which can be fleeting.

You sound salty, mon frere. It's a URL. Get over it.

I don't see what your observation about so-called 'leaders' has to do with the price of tea in China. Want to explain yourself?

To be clear, I am not saying that the stock:flow model is definitive. I am saying that the eventual price is very high, due to the endemic properties of crypto as money. And that getting from a price of Zero to a price of FuckYou is bound to take significant time, and be very chaotic along the way.

The stock:flow model is simply an empirical model that seems to roughly explain the observed underlying reality. IMNSHO.

I expect anyone that trades with any expectation of fidelity to the S:F model will likely do well on average, but likely be wiped out at some point along the way where that fidelity breaks down completely.

We humans like things in neat little predictable buckets. But while markets are derived from human behavior, price predictions are not amenable to mere mathematical analysis.