Perhaps no one has taken the opportunity yet. It was at that level just last month, so your point isn't very convincing. Either way, you're using arbitrary numbers to cherry-pick. Some miners definitely have costs below your arbitrary estimates. Throwing out $5,800 as "the cost to mine a bitcoin" (for the last 10 months?) is totally inaccurate and overgeneralizing. You're just cherry-picking to fit the recent lows on the chart to support your illogical narrative. Logically, miner costs don't "create a support." Price support implies demand. Whether miners withhold newly mined coins from the market doesn't matter if there is no demand. this is because of a underlying value created by acquisition cost. You keep saying that, but there's no evidence to support that idea. It's logically incorrect, since you aren't explaining how demand exists at that price. Mining costs do not create demand from users and investors. logical: i do not just pick a price. i look at price time tested dip retests uxto set of coins moved to support x price mining costs which pools are not as market reacters/droppers and which are OTC non market affecting pools and other things. i take a bottomline good healthy time period(10 months) that has had a good amount of retests(dips) that has seen more than 50% of coins in circulation move, etc etc .. miner demand: if it costs $6600 to mine and some miners who are price reactors. see it costs them 200 days and $6600+ to get 1BTC.. they will realise.. heck why mine. ill just buy coins instantly now, save $200 and 200 days thus if the price remains below mining costs. miners buy more instead of mine. because its cheaper and faster |
|
|
|
the reason he left the forums in 2010 was because he was realising too many people were relying on him to review code and decide things. he wanted the developmnt to have no leader, no reference point and no central point. where by people can write their own nodes and as a community come to an open and level playingfield consensus of unity to find solutions and grow the network under such consensus.
This really sounded very noble for me. And I hope this is true. What do you think happened to him?
Anyone can create a new account and pretend to be another man. The same with some people pretending to him. If I were satoshi, I will still influence the consensus. I will not just go and left this technology. I would have created a new account and influence BIPs with my inputs. Just to make sure everything is still noble. if that were true i would have seen many times/events where he could have stepped in. but certain things have been done that have caused bitcoin to migrate away from the original principles and ethos. so id say he has taken a step back to not influence it |
|
|
|
Currently, I’m studying for hobby/work all the information we have at our disposal in The Complete Satoshi of the Satoshi Nakamoto Institute website.
I started with the early emails and I‘m in the forum activities now, although it is quite technical and there are things of programming and encryption that I do not understand, his way of explaining and his excellent command of English make it quite understandable from a newbie perspective.
I also know the different forums that he took part in and how he/she/it was creating a community around Bitcoin, until apparently ceased to exist in 2014, inquiring a little in his different users on those forums, I realized that he neither said goodbye and never seemed to retire, was really a sudden disappearance and left me a bit surprised.
What do you think happened to him?
he disappeared way before 2014 try not to mix satoshi the bitcoin creator with other satoshi, the random people who pretend to have been him or accused of being him or been promoted/named as being him the reason he left the forums in 2010 was because he was realising too many people were relying on him to review code and decide things. he wanted the developmnt to have no leader, no reference point and no central point. where by people can write their own nodes and as a community to come to an open and level playingfield consensus of unity to find solutions and grow the network under such consensus. |
|
|
|
|
firstly your set up is not good for bitcoin mining. you might want to look into mining altcoins.
also the "cloud mining" services are most likely scams so try to get your funds out of them as soon as you can without reinvesting.
no one has used graphics cards for bitcoin mining in about 4 years.
these days its ASIC hardware which uses the same electric usage just 2 PC power supplies
a bitcoin ASIC miner would perform 14,000gigahashs (14million megahash). but your GPU's are only performing a few dozen megahash at most each
EG
your 1080Ti only does 32mh/s
a bitcoin asic does 14,000,000megahash
so yea best to use your graphics cards altcoin mining as you wont get much bitcoin mining
|
|
|
|
It's all about timing, if he had done this during a bull run then the amount of investment would be of the charts. The fact that this is taking place in a bear market means they must really be in trouble, he should know better than to sell off a crypto company in the current market conditions
bull or bear doesnt affect them they dont sell coins on the market as much as you think. they have year long contracts of average prices.. they dont actually care about volatility.. im starting to think the report done earlier in the year was based on BTCC not bitmain as the propaganda thats coming out seems to resonate more towards what has happened to btcc not bitmain |
|
|
|
Yeah. But wait. I cannot get that all inside my head. i need to absorb one at a time.  One question though. This plot that you are talking about. Satoshi is not there anymore right? or a part of it? It is like they are dividing what Satoshi had left so they will have the control? satoshi left 2010 the plot started 2013 |
|
|
|
UM. Then I ask the question, why would they go for an IPO?
All for the same reason, they lack money?
You say that they have recently invested free money in other companies, which means 100% of the power and monopoly on the production of mining equipment.
However, this is unexpected )
what you dont realise is this, many people think pools start by buying their own rigs. mining. getting coin and then spending coin to buy electric and more rigs.. however smart pools get people who want to OTC (private trade) for bitcoin away from the market. they hand fiat to miners. the miners then pre buy electric for a year of electric. and also cover costs of rigs. the pool then mines and they hand off coin to the investor privately at an agreed rate. the pool has preplanned hashrate expansion and a contract of coin handback at a agreeable rate. so the pools dont have to spend coins to pay for costs. and they get to keep a load of coins that they make above the quota they have to hand back OTC to investors now even smarter pools realise why make investors pay the leases, electric and rigs. when the pools can make and own their own facilities. yes that includes getting their own power plants created. and their own ASIC manufacturing facilities. and why give coins to investors when they can keep the coins in a inner circle of investors that want to reinvest or stay invested in a pool and increase the expansion even more. EG why give out $400m of coins over months. when they can just give out a % of company ownership and the funds then stay in the group and they use it to expand further and faster.
but here is the thing about less smartr pools BTCC didnt do OTC investor or planned expansion. they just mined and reacted to market prices.. BTCC also got bought out and have now an owner. but .. BTCC has dropped its expansion and is sitting at a lower % of network hashrate than before. even with new owners. lol poor guys. no wonder samson mow took on another role within the portfolio groups subsiduaries. literally jumping out the mining pool subsiduary arm and into the PR department of another subsiduary. but you will see the PR game play out to not look at BTCC and their owners and instead point fingers at bitmain. it all funny when you can stand back and see all the drama of PR distractions play out |
|
|
|
PoS costs nothing to create a block. and so gives no value to the cost of acquisition of the fresh minted coins.
PoW has a cost and no one is foolish to sell at a loss. this gives bitcoin an underline value. That's inaccurate. In both consensus systems, it's not the cost that matters. Users don't care about miner/minter costs -- why would they? You're only addressing supply, not demand. [1] Even then, your assumption that miners won't sell at a loss is not only unprovable but irrational. That's like saying no investor -- in any asset -- would ever sell at a loss. If that were true, every market would rise in perpetuity. That's untrue on its face. Aside from speculation, users are paying for security. Users aren't buying BTC so that unprofitable miners can reach their break-even point.  [1.] the cost of mining does NOT equal the current price. but does create a support of underlying value EG when the price was $20k. the underlying support was around a few thousand from november 2017 to date no one has taken the opportunity to sell below $5.800 this is because of a underlying value created by acquisition cost. in those 10 months. over 65% of the community moved coins. yep 65% of all coins in circulation moved. and so those obtaining the coins when they moved hands then valued them at $5,800 or above... mining costs curved. and is also now above $5,800. even with this summers cheaper mining rigs. so thats alot of support not wanting to sell below $5,800 now there has been 10 months of opportunity to sell below 5,800.. no one is biting.
the VALUE, imagine it like a ground level water line.. or the water line of a bathtub people fear putting head under the water line because they can drown the PRICE, imagine it like the waves above the water. or the bubbles of a bathtub. these can move and change all the time. people ride the waves and splash the water to create waves and stir things up to make bubbles. its why they say the $20k PRICE was a bubble/tsunami because it flated too fast and didnt show rational reason for supporting such a high level and didnt have a good backing my a majority acquiring coins at such a high value to support it nor had mining costs accelerate to support keeping it up. and so it corrected down to more sensible levels. where the majority would refuse to sell below.
PoS coins have no underlying costs so those receiving coins from PoS would happily sell below any price/suport
again values of PoW coins are rising perpetually. but people are only looking at the tips of waves and bubbles and shouting its not perpetual. they are not looking at the BOTTOM waterline that shows waterlevels growing slowly |
|
|
|
|
the plot thickens when you get more involved in th history of bitcoin.
after satoshi departure. there were dozens of devs all running and tweaking their nodes to do fascinating things and following a consensus set of rules that only changed and followed a new path if the majority all had the new rules ready to activate. an could activate without disruption to the majority.
but by 2013. one group decided they wanted to be the core of the network and be the reference client that others should follow their plan of action. they kicked out a few devs and added in moderation policies to rule out some proposed feature changes unless it met their desires.
this group highly promoted their certain plan for the future and even done mandatory comply or go to other network ploys.
so although you feel excited while researching 2009-2010 that you found the red pill to exit the banking matrix.
but you will soon come across the next phase where theres now a new rabbit-hole promoting a wonderland.. but this wonderland are new networks that are banker-esq. because the reference client devs are saying that bitcoin is broke and cant scale and the only future are these alternate networks of co-signatures and watchtowers and fortknox-esq factories.
so its all trying to go full circle and back under a currency control where people need other people authorisation to make payments. because a certain group wants people to think bitcoin and blockchains dont work
|
|
|
|
Once a stable version of the Lightning Network launches, then Bitcoin's functionalities will extend. As such, it'll be possible to do atomic swaps, submarine swaps, and more without the need for middleman. After this, sidechains will become the biggest trend on the Bitcoin blockchain, as they enable features that are available in the world's most popular altcoins in existence today. With sidechains, Bitcoin will be able to process smart contracts, issue tokens, register property, and more. Because of the many benefits sidechains will bring to the Bitcoin blockchain, it's believed that they will render altcoins useless in the future. As such, it would be interesting to know how sidechains will perform within the Bitcoin network, as they prove to become a better option than using an altcoin for nearly any kind of purpose in real life. Nevertheless, what are your thoughts about Bitcoin sidechains? Will they be the way of the future? Is it possible that they will replace altcoins? Or will they coexist?  LN and sidechains are not "within the bitcoin network" they are their own networks. they dont strengthen bitcoin. they lock bitcoin and get users to use other networks of coins that are not bitcoin. EG LN payments are not bitcoin payments. you can easily spot this because LN uses tokens of 12 decimals not 8 LN and side chains are services. not sole route future solutions. bitcoin needs to continue to innovate on network. not promote other networks remember rule 1 if you dont hold sole control of a bitcoin private key. you dont own your bitcoin remember rule 2 if its not confirmed on the bitcoin blockchain. its not a bitcoin transaction. (i can make 20billion transactions that have balance. but until confirmed.. it aint bitcoin im holding) rootstock, bakkt and LN are not bitcoin. they are just tagging the logo and brand to their network fr fame and investment. but ultimately they also accept/will accept other coins without only being a feature for only bitcoin. nor would they break if not bitcoin exclusive. |
|
|
|
|
PoS costs nothing to create a block. and so gives no value to the cost of acquisition of the fresh minted coins.
PoW has a cost and no one is foolish to sell at a loss. this gives bitcoin an underline value.
the underlying value is not the PRICE. the underlying value is the bottomline that the market would let the price fall too
PoS in short has no bottomline.
the only thing holding up PoS is the traders support of what the community bought at and what they wont sll below.
however the PoS block creators could undersell the traders support because it cost less for the PoS to get their coins so happy to sell for less than traders. as its still profitable
EG if gold was created by signing paper. gold wont have a underlying cost built up of mining. and then those signing for new gold could sell gold at a penny and still profit.
|
|
|
|
|
read the message in the genesis block for the answers of why he wanted to create it
he left because he didnt want to be the decision maker/ruler/person that reviews and votes/vetos rules. he wanted to leave it to the community to do using consensus.
he basically started realising people were relying on his decisions too much
|
|
|
|
No one is saying that Lightning is doing on-chain transactions, frank. Plus no one is saying that Lightning will replace on-chain transactions because we need on-chain transactions to open and close Lightning channels in the first place.
He's upset about the Lightning Network because it's essentially a bunch of IOUs, which, he is arguing, is not Bitcoin anymore. I do get where he's coming from. they aren't really IOUs though. that implies trust and custody. in LN, the trust aspect has been eliminated by the use of multi-sig contracts. they are some sort of "bitcoin substitute" but there is no trust involved. and literally, the entire point of bitcoin was to eliminate third party trust. the "banking layer" analogy is dishonest, and the "it's not bitcoin" attitude is moot since no third party trust is introduced. Lightning is essentially just an option to replace hot wallets at the end of the day, and I'm sure people will still keep a vast majority of their funds on-chain anyway.
lightning isn't exactly replacing hot wallets IMO. lightning = hot wallets. it's impossible to use LN without keeping your private keys online. that's by far the biggest problem, and why i will only ever use it in a limited capacity. you might want to research the latest concepts of fortknox "factories" you might want to research playing with payment iou's that have tokens of 12 decimals not 8 decimals "millisats" you might want to research the payment iou's are not moving funds from A to Z. but instead AB have one account and theres an IOU contract of 12decimals in that channel. B then has a separate account with C and theres an IOU of 12 decimals in that channel C then has a separate account with D and theres an IOU of 12 decimals in that channel D then has a separate account with E and theres an IOU of 12 decimals in that channel and so on all the way to Z and for A to make a payment to Z A signs a 12decimal IOU with B separately and in a different account B signs a 12decimal IOU with C separately and in a different account and so on. and as long as everyone on the route is online and has funds locked up as collateral in a factory they all agree on their individual IOU's of 12 decimals in the channels later and separately a different contract that contains 12 decimal values can be be sent back to the factory when closing a channel. to then negotiate a 8decimal contract to exit fortknox and get back onchain usable funds. or renegotiate another set of 12 decimal iou's to reopen new channels. thus reducing the amount of onchain transactions just to close and reopen channels. yea i hear people twist it to say its good to keep funds locked into fortknox "factories". but without actually innovating bitcoins blockchain. fortknox owners will try to persuade people that its easier faster and cheaper to exit fortnox via altcoins. like the gold banking era gold in.. nickel and brass coins out. and fortknox keeps the gold |
|
|
|
Someone must make the call, to decide what will be accepted and what not, so what kind of consensus mechanism would you suggest to keep decisions like this, decentralized?
The current one. There's nothing wrong with it, despite what franky1 might claim. He's just throwing tantrums because he can't get his own way. The only nail in the coffin for me would be if Bitcoin somehow became a closed-source and permissioned system. A "walled garden" where people weren't able to view or modify the source, or create the software they wanted to create. Freedom is the most important thing for me.
a situation where people end up having to follow a certain reference roadmap. where people cant independently propose changes that counter such roadmap, all they can do is make software that follows a roadmap... anyone who does try to create software that allows its own proposal plans, even if that proposal plan has no mandatory deadlines is treated like hostile. and told to get off the network? You don't have to follow a certain roadmap. You are free to create a client that proposes an entirely new roadmap. The problem you seem to be having is that people either: a) don't approve of your proposed roadmap, or b) don't have a particularly strong opinion one way or the other and are just gong with the flow, or c) are already using another coin that has a similar roadmap to the one you keep whining BTC should have If more people felt the way you do, the current roadmap wouldn't be the current roadmap. Or do you think all these thousands of BTC nodes are being run just for the fun of it? Each of those nodes is testament to the fact that BTC's present course is locked in and you can't do anything to change it, unless you can build a layer on top of Bitcoin that is more to your liking. You're free to do that too. I see what you're doing. You want more people to feel the way you do. That's why you're taking thinly-veiled potshots at the current roadmap in most of the topics you participate in. No one's falling for it. predicted insult confirmed the refernce client roadmap only under 40% traffic. both of wanting to use their route between november 2016 and summer 2017. and also under 40% now of wanting to use their vehicles designed for their route. but lets address the summer of 2017 obviously that was not good enough stats for the reference client teams roadmap to be the main road. and so there was a mandated follow only this route and comply to only this route or find yourself moved out of town. that is not consensus even the misdirection alternative road called segwit2x was designed by the same group to appear like people could travel a different direction in august while remaining in the same town. but by november they realised that road was never a new direction but a one way street that u-bends back to the reference clients road but why. i predict the standard reply. if you dont like the town with only one road. get out of town |
|
|
|
Who will dictate this roadmap? A few individuals or a government or Financial institutions? Is this not what we are seeing with Alt coins like Ethereum and Ripple? Someone must make the call, to decide what will be accepted and what not, so what kind of consensus mechanism would you suggest to keep decisions like this, decentralized? This is a tricky subject, but I am very curious about your opinion on this. "someone must make the call" ... um no. thats the centralised mindset. solution not having a reference client that has a moderation policy and a 3 step judging system to even get a proposal wrote to code. and only the proposals that fit their roadmap get accepted. instead allow the community to make their nodes have different offerings and let consensus play out. in other words an open network of roads where the majority of vehicles offer alternative routes. and after time if it shows the majority without penalty of being thrown out of town for not going a certain road(mandatory diversion at date X), again without mandatory diversions. if there is a majority of natural traffic flow going through certain roads. that that becomes the natural main road. a reference client mandating a route and blind followers is not consensus but people following the majority without mandate or threat. is consensus, plus if the road ends up being wrong they still can change direction without needing a reference client to decide for them saying a network without orphans is good.. is saying a network without choice is good. a road without junctions is good. having open roads and people choose not to use them is better than only having one road designed by one group which people are mandated to follow |
|
|
|
|
sorry to butt in. and i expect usual insults for pointing out flaws
"only happens once both parties have revoked the previous commitment " - incorrect
above poster doesnt realise that the beauty of a blockchain is that rules are set by a communtiy audit that destroy something if it doesnt forfil the community consensus.
LN has no community consensus. users can change their nodes code. and not do something or do something different to others. meaning B can change the rules. and so can A
EG
you think in a network where a man has to put out his hand first and wait for a lady to hold it. thats it, thats the rule and no one can abuse that. you would be wrong
in a public network. that can be true as the community can see if a lady acts firsts, the community can shun her and throw her out the community.
but in a non community audited world the lady can decide to do things differently such as put her hand out first or refuse to put her hand out entirely.
so she can decide and say she will or wont do something unless...
and thus the man has to decide to obey or close off communication with the lady ...
EG the revocation key. the guy hands his key first. but the lady does not offer her key
nothing on the planet will make the lady forced to hand her key over simply because the guy did
LN does not solve the byzantine generals rule. people can tweak their node to not do key handshaking in a certain order. thus gain an upper hand.
if the guy doesnt like it. all they have is an old state they can transmit but now the lady has the revoke key to that
LN has flaws.
devs know it
they actually warn people to not deposit funds people are willing to lose.
sorry but LN is not perfect and people have lost funds.
it why blockchains exist and every transaction needs community validation. to solve the byzantine generals rule. LN does not solve it
|
|
|
|
The only nail in the coffin for me would be if Bitcoin somehow became a closed-source and permissioned system. A "walled garden" where people weren't able to view or modify the source, or create the software they wanted to create. Freedom is the most important thing for me.
a situation where people end up having to follow a certain reference roadmap. where people cant independently propose changes that counter such roadmap, all they can do is make software that follows a roadmap... anyone who does try to create software that allows its own proposal plans, even if that proposal plan has no mandatory deadlines is treated like hostile. and told to get off the network? |
|
|
|
Bitcoin as we all know is used to make safe and secure transactions anywhere in the world,and the best part of it all is that it is not controlled,insured or regulated by any government or Central Bank whatsoever..
I think what could trigger me to abandone this platform is if at some point in time,government gains control of the bitcoin,and the management of the network is no longer in the hands of the users or investors.
To put it in a single word if the bitcoin becomes "centralized"and subject to governing bodies such as our federal government...For me that could be the nail in the coffin and the straw that breaks the camels back.
seems your words are about a government centralisation attempt how about not be concerned with senators/ministers. they are not the ones writing bitcoin code. and there are 200+ countries so a minister/senator cannot rule a law that bitcoin code has to be wrote a certain way and instead think bitcoin can be centralised by a group of certain influencers such as a banking group who have devs on the employ. and the banking group have ownership of a portfolio of merchant tool/exchange services. where this group want to shout that bitcoin is dead and the only solution is using other networks that function like the fortknox->banker permissioned/managed accounts model |
|
|
|
LN is a separate network. like ripple No. Bitcoin and Ripple are separate networks that have their own separate ledgers and nodes. Lightning is not an exclusive "network" that can be used without the Bitcoin blockchain. bitcoin had to change to be LN compatible
litecoin had to change to be LN compatible
Define change. Segwit is a malleabilty fix. 1. what you have yet to realise is that LN is a network that can be used without the bitcoin blockchain. because LN allows litecoin transactions and other coins.. lets call LN an island. it allows many nations. its just right now its occupied by bitcoiners exploring the land .. it doesnt mean its only for bitcoiners. if bitcoiners leave. other nations can survive as they are allowed on the island. 2. segwit is a compatability with LN fix... maybe you should realise new/reactivated opcodes allow malleability with segwit transactions.. the devs know it. they even discussed renaming an opcode to include a warning 3. segwit is also a X4 weight manipulation. to make old transaction type appear worse then segwit when its actually segwit that are more bloated.. byte for byte take away the 4x scale factor wishy washy herpaderp code which legacy transactions are made victim of... and that will allow legacy AND segwit to sit side by side using the full4mb weight and allowing more transactions per block than the current herpa derp wishy washy limitation 4. segwit bech32 is also an identifier change done purely to allow LN to recognise litecoin from bitcoin better(and other coins that will join LN) anyway. seeing as most rebuttles are from people that dont read code, and just want to defend coders rather than the network .. i know standard reply.. if i dont like the changes i can F**k off to another network (typical BORDER control reply) i guess people dont read that bitcoin meant to be borderless and should not be told to use other networks outside the border my point is get rid of the wall that is limiting population growth and stop advertising other things outside the border as the only option people have |
|
|
|
LN is simply a second layer on top of bitcoin that despite what franky insists is made for bitcoin
seems the promotion machine is on full steam.. give any network a bitcoin sticker and suddenly..... P.S do you think rootstock, ripple and Bakkt are "bitcoin layers".. dont hit reply so quickly. take time to research (hint LN will see litecoin on the same network as bitcoin) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
