What where those "other cryptocurrencies"?
Ethereum classic, Bitcoin Gold, Verge, Feathercoin, Litecoin Cash, probably more.
I believe 51% attacks towards those networks would require the attacker considerably less resources than they would if they attacked a POW giant such as Bitcoin.
Obviously, but it's a matter of numbers from that point on. You could argue that no sane person would attack the other cryptocurrencies either, but they were attacked. This is evidence that the game theory is only partially correct. It's correct as long as the incentives to protect are greater than to attack; you can't be 100% certain that will last forever. No, for nascent shitcoins there's no debate. Because the incentives to attack those chains would potentially be MORE compared to the cost of attacking it. Why be honest if attacking it gives more incentives? In Bitcoin, if it pays more to be honest, then there's no point in attacking it. The game theory fully works. |
|
|
|
In the below recent recording Saylor explains a question likely many investors have: what separates MSTR from other options owning
<…>
This is bullshit. There is no reason to hold MSTR after an ETF is approved. This is an inferior vehicle to get exposure ti bitcoin price, no matter how much Micheal Saylor try to persuade us. As I said, if you want to bet on an ETF approval you might want to short MSTR and long Grayscale. Ser, are you sure? What an irresponsible advice to suggest. Because even if there's an ETF approval for many asset managers, it doesn't change the fact that MicroStrategy still HODLs 152,800 Bitcoin in their balance sheet. If that surges in value, then their balance sheet will have a BIG PLUS sign in it, which will definitely be very good for MSTR's market value. But I'm the stupid pleb, I could be wrong. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ A lot of people hold Microstrategy because there is no better way to gain exposure to bitcoin price for an US professional investor than Microstrategy. When an ETF is approved, then there will be a selling pressure on Microstrategy (stock) to buy the ETF. The ETF has many advantages tracking bitcoin price over MSTR. But the point is if an ETF is approved, Bitcoin will surge then expand the value of MicroStrategy's balance sheet, therefore making the actual value of MSTR go up. But if MSTR is sold because "reasons" and its price crashes down, THEN the stock is undervalued because of MicroStrategy's surging Bitcoin in the company's vaults. It will be a golden investment opportunity.
It is true that they hold BTC on their balance sheet, buttthey also have other industrial activities that can impact shareholders value. In addition to that, Micheal Salylor could decide to dump all the BTC and nobody could argue with it.
That's a strawman and outside the context of the debate. Because those other industrial activites could add value to the company too, and Chad Saylor could also decide to buy more Bitcoin from company profits. |
|
|
|
but it was way back when the hash rates were low compared to now. Yes, but even now, there are like two pools which produce most of the work; Foundry USA and Antpool; 52.04% of the total hashrate there. That isn't progress. But the fact is the there is no incentive to the miners if they become malicious
How can you be so certain? The numerous 51% attacks in other such cryptocurrencies should have already convinced you that the game theory is only partly correct. What where those "other cryptocurrencies"? Nascent POW shitcoins? I believe 51% attacks towards those networks would require the attacker considerably less resources than they would if they attacked a POW giant such as Bitcoin. Would Foundry USA and Antpool really risk everything just to attempt a double spend? |
|
|
|
In the below recent recording Saylor explains a question likely many investors have: what separates MSTR from other options owning
<…>
This is bullshit. There is no reason to hold MSTR after an ETF is approved. This is an inferior vehicle to get exposure ti bitcoin price, no matter how much Micheal Saylor try to persuade us. As I said, if you want to bet on an ETF approval you might want to short MSTR and long Grayscale. Ser, are you sure? What an irresponsible advice to suggest. Because even if there's an ETF approval for many asset managers, it doesn't change the fact that MicroStrategy still HODLs 152,800 Bitcoin in their balance sheet. If that surges in value, then their balance sheet will have a BIG PLUS sign in it, which will definitely be very good for MSTR's market value. But I'm the stupid pleb, I could be wrong. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ |
|
|
|
Everyone just needs to look and read the comments in your trust rating to know what you actually are. You're a fiend who never actually cared for Bitcoin, what the community decided during the scaling debate, nor for the design decisions made by the Core Developers to maintain decentralization.
"core devs maintaining" is not decentralisation.. even their brand name debunks your theory CORE=CENTER It's just a name/label.  But what do you propose, frankandbeans? That development should have no order, no organization? Are you proposing those developers from Bitcoin Unlimited, Bitcoin ABC, and BCash should be given authority to commit code to the main repository? To the same people who tried to co-opt Bitcoin and fork it away from the Core Developers? That's a very funny joke, ser. |
|
|
|
what are the potential ethical issues and challenges arising from the increasing centralization of mining power and wealth in very few dominant mining pools in the Bitcoin network and what can the bitcoin community do? what measures can be taken to maintain decentralization of the network while addressing these concerns?
like the risk of 51% attack when big pools have more power, etc.
They could try, but network participants are incentivized to be honest. If an entity gains 51% of the hashing power and decides to censor "some transactions" or do some double spends, don't you think that it's merely wasting the resources spent on the network? Because the community, given a live or die situation, could actually come into consensus to hard fork the network and exclude the bad miner. Contrastingly, if the bad actors mined honestly instead, they would be rewarded in Bitcoin.  |
|
|
|
What's bad for the people's freedom to transact actually increases the need for financial assets that are built with censorship-resistance and permissionlessness in mind to help the individual become more ungovernable and self-sovereign. We can't just accept tyranny to rule over the world, no? If only there was such an asset invented. just a shame when such people as yourself then want to tell people to lock up that self sovereign currency. to then go play with another network of middlemen that is the sandbox network design of most CBDC(blockstream were not paid hundreds of millions of dollars out of donated generosity.. it was a sponsored investment by the institutions to want to get a prototype they can use(research hyperledger-blockstream.. hyperledger-CBDC)) ill give you a few years to ponder that in a shower.. but this time clean your head and really rinse your head of all the stuff thats been put into it .. dont use your favourite branded shampoo, (emphasis on the sham.. and emphasis on the poo) There goes frankandbeans again, purposefully taking my posts out of context, and gaslighting the public into believing that I'm the villain and he's the "Anti-Hero" saving Bitcoin from the "Evil Core Developers". Laughable. Everyone just needs to look and read the comments in your trust rating to know what you actually are. You're a fiend who never actually cared for Bitcoin, what the community decided during the scaling debate, nor for the design decisions made by the Core Developers to maintain decentralization. |
|
|
|
~snip~
How much larger is BlackRock as a company compared to MicroStrategy? When I was doing my research on that, I found out that BlackRock owns 8.1% of MicroStrategy.
There is no doubt that BR is an incomparably larger company that is also globally positioned and, if I remember correctly, has offices in 30 countries and provides services in around 100 countries around the world. But it doesn't make much sense to compare BlackRock and MicroStrategy because they are two completely different business models, and Saylor is still one of the people who has the biggest influence in the company and is also completely crazy about Bitcoin. I assume that BlackRock does not just go in this direction without having insight into the wishes of its clients, but we cannot know how much of an effect it will actually cause. But ser, knowing BlackRock's potentially huge effect in any investment it tries to get into, do you actually believe that with their size, they would just merely be a minor player in the Bitcoin ETF Market? I personally believe they won't, but that's just a matter of opinion, I could be wrong. But just from an investment perspective, hopefully proven right. |
|
|
|
price-based strategy. That won't work if you truly want to HODL. You should have a time-based strategy.
Well despite having long-term perspectives in mind while buying Bitcoin, we must still put in mind that our entry price matters a lot because the buy price is what determines the level and time of profits, this is so because those that bought their first Bitcoin at all-time high price above $55,000-60k+ are going to wait longer before the records profits compared to those that bought bitcoin at a discounted price below $16,000-20k if bitcoin make any all-time high above the last ATH. Try to get the point of the post and what's being said. I'm not telling you to buy blindly at ANY price like a DCA-type of strategy. My own personal belief has always been wait for a DIP, and always bid LOW where you can find a discount. The debate for a time-based strategy is to continue HODLing despite making a mistake and having -50% in paper-losses in your investment. Some price-based investment strategies would have already sold at a loss because "price dictates" that such a strategy should keep losses small. I think for Bitcoin that might be the wrong approach. The devil is still in the details Wind_FURY.... because each of us likely have time-based considerations, but also just buying on the dip in itself is a price-based consideration. So, even though it does not hurt to throw out those ideas, each of us are likely attempting to weigh both types of considerations and to employ those into our overall approach to BTC whether it is in regards to the way that we accumulate BTC or in regards to the extent that we might consider various points that we might sell.. and sometimes we are going to have to consider both time and price at the same time, because if the BTC price shot up to $1 million within this calendar year, it might cause some folks to take some value off the table because the BTC price seems to be unsustainable to be shooting up so rapidly, but if the BTC price slowly goes up for the next 4-10 years and maybe it reaches $1 million in that time frame, and maybe it does not, but the mere passage of time, could well contribute to changes in our own personal ways of thinking about how we might want to manage our BTC portfolio, even if the BTC price reaches the same amount of $1 million, and we are not being irrational or panicking merely because we change our strategy based on the differences in the timeline that ends up playing out in those two different scenarios that I suggested that either of which could end up happening... But the whole point being how to avoid selling at the wrong time because every decision is price-based. IE some people would buy at $30,000 and decide to sell at $32,000 because there's "price resistance", then buying again at some price point and sell at another shortly after "because reasons". The other point for a time-based strategy is that, during bear markets = time-based, there are more opportunities in buying actual DIPs that might not DIP much further, giving the buyer a discount than buying blindly at any price point. Still? How are we going to know? Even now, it does seems that we are in a flat and maybe slowly climbing out of the bear market phase, so maybe it is a good time to be buying on dips? The odds seem pretty good that our $15,479 bottom is in, and the 200-week moving average continues to move up. It was just below $22k when the May 2022 BTC price fiasco seemed to have begun (or was pretty clearly undeniably in a bear market), but many of us might not have had known that we were in a bear market prior to May 2022.. so there likely were a lot of bitcoiners who were buying BTC at higher than $37k prices prior to May 2022.. and many of them were buying like crazy in the lower $50ks because they were not convinced (or they were convinced) that bitcoin would not go below $50k ever again... No one can truly know, especially plebs like me, but the point is buying at a discount relative to where the price was than buying blindly at any price point would give the person more value for his money.
and I am not even saying that those kinds of buys of BTC are unreasonable, but sometimes the contradictory nature of a lot of the feelings and sentiments about price may well end up allowing for greater psychological security to just employ various regular BTC buying strategies that focus on regularly buying more BTC rather than trying to guess if the BTC price might be going up or down.. which also may well result in larger amounts of BTC accumulated even if the average cost per BTC may well have had ended up being higher.. but at least the BTC stash was honed into becoming a larger size than the "let's wait and see" approach...
That's why, knowing that Bitcoin has a four-year cycle, I'm suggesting that a time-based strategy might be better? Which if we think more about it, a HODLing strategy might already be time-based, but probably needs to have a time-based strategy for buying. |
|
|
|
~snip~
Therefore I truly believe BlackRock will make the largest investment by an institution/asset manager in Bitcoin's history. How much is Chad Saylor's Bitcoin investment? 0.05% of Total Supply?
The first question is whether BR will get approval for that ETF at all, and the second, if it gets it, will their clients be interested in investing in BTC? What if the interest for that ETF is similar or only slightly higher than that shown by investors for futures BTC ETF? In my opinion, it is wrong to assume that they will invest the most just because they have the most assets under management. Needless to say, yes that's true, but that's for another discussion. I'm talking about BlackRock's company size, the volume and depth of their investments worldwide, and their history. If we take all that into consideration, they could build a larger stake than Chad Saylor. How much larger is BlackRock as a company compared to MicroStrategy? When I was doing my research on that, I found out that BlackRock owns 8.1% of MicroStrategy. https://fintel.io/so/us/mstr/blackrock |
|
|
|
I don't know. The person has to judge his own trading performance himself/herself. Because even though a person has a stable source of income but he/she consistently loses a part of his/her salary in "the passion for trading", then what would be the difference between that and losing money regularly in the casino playing Craps?
There are only two ways to judge our trading performance which go hand in hand, the first one is the money in our pockets, if at the end of our trading session we have more money than when we begun then this is a good sign, as people should trade for only one reason and that is to make money. The second criteria we need to use is the process which allowed to get those profits, after all if those profits come from a fortunate movement of the markets that saved us from losing money then we did something wrong and as such those results are not repeatable, however if those profits came from a deep analysis of the markets and we have backtested our strategy many times and those results fit what we can expect out of it, then we are doing things the right way and can expect more sessions like that on the future. I don't know how each and one of you judge your "trading performance", but I'm very confident that if your data is merely one year or two years or even also 3 years, it might not be large enough to "judge" how profitable you are in trading. There's a reason why professional traders back-test their trading strategy to 10 years. Plus my post was for plebs like me who might be doing under-capitalized trading and believing that they could out-trade the market consistently. It's like gambling in my opinion. When it comes on trying out to assess your trading capability then 1 year should really be enough or even on 6 months on doing trading. I'm a mere pleb, and I'm also just learning but I'm sorry, ser. I'm very VERY confident that isn't true. If you don't believe it, you can ask those traders and investors who have been in it long enough for their thoughts and opinions to matter. It's also just common-sense. Having just one year of good performance is not indicative of that person having a consistent winning career as an investor or a trader. There might be exceptions, but it isn't the usual. |
|
|
|
it still can't make invalid transactions into valid transactions. It can JUST censor transactions.
Can't they make a valid transaction invalid? Isn't it double spending? If anyone can censor transactions, the network won't be any more decentralized. My bad if I have written something wrong, that's what I know. I'm not saying that's going to happen though. Well, it doesn't make sense. Why would someone bother to attempt to do so by spending this huge amount in achieving this huge hash rate? No, because the full nodes validate ALL blocks and ALL transactions, and enforce the rules. If there's a mining pool that announces an invalid block, the full nodes in the network will know and not send it out, disallowing it from propagating around the network. |
|
|
|
As inflation has fallen to 3%, the period of rate hikes should end very soon. Yes, a 0.25% rate hike is now possible, but the Fed could make a surprise move by announcing a pause. In fact, they're talking about 2% - but it's not really 2%, right? So expect some surprises in the near future
Look at the blue line in the charts in OP. There never truly was a fall in inflation until a phase of high unemployment has already happened. Unemployment has currently remained very low, then that means demand is still right their in the U.S. economy, which could mean re-inflation if the Federal Reserve starts pausing rate hikes. Plus to those people who believe that the U.S. will escape a recession, read Fitch's downgrade, https://www.fitchratings.com/research/sovereigns/fitch-downgrades-united-states-long-term-ratings-to-aa-from-aaa-outlook-stable-01-08-2023That's a symptom of financial deterioration, and the effect of the U.S. government's debt burden. |
|
|
|
But was there any such attack on Bitcoin around that time?
As far as we know, no. Plus if there was, let's get the facts clear. There's a misstatement that's commonly accepted that if an entity "controls 51% or more of the total hashing power, that entity has total control over the Bitcoin network". That's actually wrong. An entity can have 100% of the total hashing power, but it still can't change the consensus rules and it still can't make invalid transactions into valid transactions. It can JUST censor transactions. |
|
|
|
Maybe you can also learn more about why is the needs for decentralized digital currency and what government stand to achieve with their CBDC decision at last:
The US Congressman alerted for the need to place a ban over the use of the centralized bank digital currency (CBDC), Warren Davidson noted that CBDC is government new strategy to control finances and abuse the fairness in money distribution and utilization for their own benefits in other to have control over other people's financial asset.
There are concerns that the lack of necessary legislation could lead to a wave of CBDCs that banks or financial institutions could be free to launch. The state alone cannot work on developing and launching this type of currency without entering into formulas and agreements with other financial institutions and defining the powers of each party. In all analyzes and opinions, everyone raises the issue from the point of view of governments and legislators, due to the tacit conviction that users do not have the freedom of choice and therefore do not have the freedom to control their balances of those currencies since they are subject to the supervision of government control agencies. These currencies are the new face of fiat money and have nothing to do with the privacy or decentralization that characterizes cryptocurrencies. What's bad for the people's freedom to transact actually increases the need for financial assets that are built with censorship-resistance and permissionlessness in mind to help the individual become more ungovernable and self-sovereign. We can't just accept tyranny to rule over the world, no? If only there was such an asset invented. |
|
|
|
price-based strategy. That won't work if you truly want to HODL. You should have a time-based strategy.
Well despite having long-term perspectives in mind while buying Bitcoin, we must still put in mind that our entry price matters a lot because the buy price is what determines the level and time of profits, this is so because those that bought their first Bitcoin at all-time high price above $55,000-60k+ are going to wait longer before the records profits compared to those that bought bitcoin at a discounted price below $16,000-20k if bitcoin make any all-time high above the last ATH. Try to get the point of the post and what's being said. I'm not telling you to buy blindly at ANY price like a DCA-type of strategy. My own personal belief has always been wait for a DIP, and always bid LOW where you can find a discount. The debate for a time-based strategy is to continue HODLing despite making a mistake and having -50% in paper-losses in your investment. Some price-based investment strategies would have already sold at a loss because "price dictates" that such a strategy should keep losses small. I think for Bitcoin that might be the wrong approach. The devil is still in the details Wind_FURY.... because each of us likely have time-based considerations, but also just buying on the dip in itself is a price-based consideration. So, even though it does not hurt to throw out those ideas, each of us are likely attempting to weigh both types of considerations and to employ those into our overall approach to BTC whether it is in regards to the way that we accumulate BTC or in regards to the extent that we might consider various points that we might sell.. and sometimes we are going to have to consider both time and price at the same time, because if the BTC price shot up to $1 million within this calendar year, it might cause some folks to take some value off the table because the BTC price seems to be unsustainable to be shooting up so rapidly, but if the BTC price slowly goes up for the next 4-10 years and maybe it reaches $1 million in that time frame, and maybe it does not, but the mere passage of time, could well contribute to changes in our own personal ways of thinking about how we might want to manage our BTC portfolio, even if the BTC price reaches the same amount of $1 million, and we are not being irrational or panicking merely because we change our strategy based on the differences in the timeline that ends up playing out in those two different scenarios that I suggested that either of which could end up happening... But the whole point being how to avoid selling at the wrong time because every decision is price-based. IE some people would buy at $30,000 and decide to sell at $32,000 because there's "price resistance", then buying again at some price point and sell at another shortly after "because reasons". The other point for a time-based strategy is that, during bear markets = time-based, there are more opportunities in buying actual DIPs that might not DIP much further, giving the buyer a discount than buying blindly at any price point. |
|
|
|
I don't know. The person has to judge his own trading performance himself/herself. Because even though a person has a stable source of income but he/she consistently loses a part of his/her salary in "the passion for trading", then what would be the difference between that and losing money regularly in the casino playing Craps?
There are only two ways to judge our trading performance which go hand in hand, the first one is the money in our pockets, if at the end of our trading session we have more money than when we begun then this is a good sign, as people should trade for only one reason and that is to make money. The second criteria we need to use is the process which allowed to get those profits, after all if those profits come from a fortunate movement of the markets that saved us from losing money then we did something wrong and as such those results are not repeatable, however if those profits came from a deep analysis of the markets and we have backtested our strategy many times and those results fit what we can expect out of it, then we are doing things the right way and can expect more sessions like that on the future. I don't know how each and one of you judge your "trading performance", but I'm very confident that if your data is merely one year or two years or even also 3 years, it might not be large enough to "judge" how profitable you are in trading. There's a reason why professional traders back-test their trading strategy to 10 years. Plus my post was for plebs like me who might be doing under-capitalized trading and believing that they could out-trade the market consistently. It's like gambling in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Could you provide example of sabotage?
Let's imagine a situation. The year is 2140. No one is using the first layer for transactions anymore. All transactions are conducted on something like Ark protocol. There are 100 Ark service providers collectively generating 100 transactions in each block. They set a fee of 1.20 satoshis per vByte in their transactions. Miners go out of business and stop producing blocks. Network difficulty drops dramatically, and Bitcoin ceases to be a reliable store of value. Wouldn't it be better to take unused coins and use them to incentivize miners to continue their business? I noticed many posters are trying to go around the hypothetical situation and question. Let's make internetional happy and give it a hypothetical answer. For me the answer is definitely NO because it breaks blockchain immutability, one of Bitcoin's important social contracts. I believe once given a hard choice of "change or die", the community could come behind the consensus of removing the supply limit and choose to see the currency become inflationary to keep incentivizing the miners than break the concept of not your keys not your coins. I'm not judging OP, and what I'm going to say is nothing against him nor am I trying to offend him. BUT, I'm starting to believe that laughable topics such this are mere 4D Chess moves made to start a debate and see if it catches many people's attention. Perhaps "some people" hope to see some gaslighting in the discussions to happen? Haha. What recycling of "dormant coins" actually does is KILL Bitcoin's immutability. Moderators should probably lock the topic and stop the naivety of the proposal. No, it's not that laughable at all. If we keep in mind that people don't take care of their wallets and use service like Ledger Recover, then we can say that number of lost bitcoins will grow in near future. At the same time, if demand on bitcoin tremendously rises, that will also mean that a lot of new people won't be able to keep wallet/coins safe and they'll lose them too. Imagine, Binance loses its reserves, which is about half a million bitcoins or hackers steal thousands of bitcoins multiple times but burn every proof, including wallet key/seed before their arrest? Everything can happen. OK, and do you think breaking Bitcoin's immutability is the answer? |
|
|
|
I'm sorry to disappoint you, frankandbeans. Growth and adoption might be slow, but it definitely hasn't "failed the test of time". Lightning Network Capacity has actually been growing year on year since 2018.
funny observation that you link a chart that IGNORED this last current month.. because.. capacity dropped in the last month by alot (so that just debunks YOUR "year on year" growth, becasue if you include all months of the year, you will see a drop) Newbies and my fellow plebs, do you see how frankandbeans plays 4D Chess? It would sort of look like he's right, but the reason why the current month hasn't been recorded in the chart yet is because the month wasn't over the day I posted the link. July's data will be included when the month ends. PLUS it might be true, Lightning Capacity might have gone down by some percentage, but how can that disprove the growth of Lightning year on year since 2018? frankandbeans, I'll give you a hint = It doesn't. |
|
|
|
even you just admitted they didnt even change the network magic..
because they didnt want or cause the split..
So your argument is BCH announced a hardork, officially stated the day it would go ahead and wrote the code to make it happen, because THEY DIDN'T WANT TO SPLIT? Is that the level of fuckwittery we're going with now? ill make it simple.. the segwit supporting groups changed code.. the non segwit supporting group did not change code.. so you cant say the segwit abstainers caused a fork
*facepalm* If Core devs hadn't been able to look at BCH's code repository, which they could see forked from their own repository, then they wouldn't have been able to see what network magic BCH was using. If you try to apply some logic for the first time in your life, you might comprehend that this means the BCH code existed before Core decided to take action to protect BTC users. Do I have to provide a link to the developer discussion about it again? Here you go: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10982BCH code clearly existed first. They caused it. There's no need to debate any further because frankandbeans is merely gaslighting. The big blockers narrative = they didn't want to split from the network but the Core Developers forced "the community", whoever that is -probably Roger Ver and his sockpuppets, to make that decision. THEN he makes the claim that BCash is the real Bitcoin because it's according to Satoshi's vision of a peer to peer electronic cash system.  What a drama queen. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
