I may be wrong, but a good part of the world still lives pretty much isolated on technology today (no Internet, TVs, washing machine, microwave...) and I am sure that in the future they will contribute to even greater consumption of electricity. The fact is that all electrical devices in the world consume double-digit more electricity in standby mode than it is spent on mining in one year. the hash rate has roughly doubled since that comparison was made 5 months ago. i'm not sure you're accounting for this level of growing mining expenditure. Added to this is the fact that the largest mining farms are located near hydroelectric power plants, and that the electricity they use is largely surplus.
that's only true during the wet season. just playing devil's advocate.....  |
|
|
|
So roughly 0.2% of the total generated electricity is used on Bitcoin mining, and more then 50% of that comes from renewable energy sources. By what is o_e_l_e_o posted only cable boxes, TVs, DVD players, and other devices in standby mode consume more energy in one year than all bitcoin mining. And this is only in USA, what about rest of the world?
that's a good point, but we shouldn't only be considering current consumption. bitcoin's electricity consumption may significantly increase over time---and it definitely will if the price keeps increasing. televisions and DVD players have already completely penetrated society, so their associated electricity consumption is already near the upper bounds. in another 10-20 years, i doubt we'll be comparing bitcoin to christmas lights or cable boxes. the question then becomes, what is an unreasonable amount of consumption? we shouldn't be content to say, "it's still small right now, let's not worry about it". and i don't mean to fearmonger. i just don't see any useful extrapolations into the future, and i think that's necessary for any honest discussion of this issue. i don't want people to get the impression that bitcoin will always use less electricity than television devices in standby. that's definitely not true. |
|
|
|
yeah but that's already the letter of the law with rubles and more traditional payment methods. if you get caught receiving stolen goods or illicit fiat proceeds, it's already confiscatable. the government is just extending that legal theory to digital assets, which aren't defined in the law yet.
defining cryptocurrency in the law may actually grant it some legitimacy.
We do have a law related to purchasers of stolen goods/properties in good faith but the thing here is even the unknowing buyer/seller receiving the stolen goods (crypto in this case) doesn't have any direct links to the crime but he has the legal obligation to return the funds back provided that his money or the item he exchange for it will be returned. In what the Russian government is trying to propose they will just instantly confiscate the cryptocurrency without even returning anything to the unaware party. This part is where the Russian citizens are in a bad position since really they don't have any kind of protection once their money is confiscated by their own government. that's how it works in the USA. the police can seize any property by claiming it has been involved in criminal activity. the property owner doesn't need to be found guilty of a crime; the police can simply take his property. fighting to recover the property is extremely burdensome and the success rate is low, so most people don't bother. https://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/03/civil-asset-forfeiture-7-things-you-should-knowBeing innocent does not mean that a state has to return your property. The Supreme Court of the United States has held that the “innocent owner” defense is not constitutionally required. Furthermore, even in states where you do have an innocent owner defense, the burden is typically on you. Your property is presumed to be guilty until you prove that you are innocent and that your property therefore should not be forfeited. In other words, you must prove (1) that you were not involved in criminal activity and (2) that you either had no knowledge that your property was being used to facilitate the commission of a crime or that you took every reasonable step under the circumstances to terminate such use. And all the while, the police retain your property. To cap it all off, the success rate for winning back property is low. Pragmatic property owners, however innocent, may reason that it is best to cut their losses rather than challenge the forfeiture in court. i assumed that russia was no different but perhaps i'm wrong about that. |
|
|
|
What I am a fan of are their once a day manual withdrawals because they do not work with hot wallets. This is something I wish more exchanges would do, but they are too busy caring about the opinions of their noobie gamblers who want to cash out immediately. They are also the first to complain when the exchange they use gets hacked.  i just wish bitmex would do something to optimize their transactions and overall effect on the network. they are the sole reason why i loathe transacting during the daytime. https://twitter.com/ziggamon/status/1134490591264497664 Second is BitMEX @BitMEXdotcom @BitMEXResearch Every day at 9.15 AM ET they dump ~4 MB of just comically unoptimized withdrawal transactions. This is a big reason why fees are high during US office hours. Optimizing these to best practices would make these tx's shrink by 98% +. |
|
|
|
I often use Binance, but it doesn't fit me completely, so I'm combining it with other exchanges. Before Coinbase increased their fees, I used it as well.
Now my working combination is Binance (ok for large amounts, safe enough, has a good reputation) + Changelly (fast transactions, fees to crypto are ok, responsive support team). why use changelly at all? their 0.25% fees (probably higher if you consider their spread) are much higher than binance's 0.1%. i've also seen a good deal of complaints about changelly re freezing funds and requiring KYC. https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/8bdigt/dont_use_changelly_millions_stolen/i'm shopping for a new exchange though after coinbase jacked their fees up and binance kicked out USA traders. kraken and kucoin seem like the logical replacements, though i'm on the fence about kraken. |
|
|
|
this suggests some people are pricing it in, that's all. based on the actual stock-to-flow relationship, the market hasn't priced in the halving at all. https://www.ccn.com/top-german-bank-predicts-bitcoin-to-hit-90000-after-halving/“If the May 2020 stock-to-flow ratio for Bitcoin is factored into the model, a vertiginous price of around USD 90,000 emerges. This would imply that the forthcoming halving effect has hardly been priced into the current Bitcoin price of approximately USD 8,000 (the current model value is roughly USD 7,500).” -Bayern LB report i remember being bearish in the first half of 2016 and saying things like "the halving is already priced in"......i was totally wrong back then. i don't think any event is ever totally priced in until it happens. I believe the stock-to-flow ratio "theory" only focuses on supply, but what about the demand? the stock-to-flow model assumes a constant level of demand. in reality, demand waxes and wanes with bull and bear markets. if $90k is the model's target post-halving, then bubble hype (temporary speculative demand) should take us considerably further. Stock-to-flow ratio is originally used for commodities, like gold. Gold never mooned. BUT this might be good. Bitcoin's "Age of Stability".  bitcoin is a commodity like gold, right down to the mining analogy. i would say gold did moon. it's up like 3600% over the past 50 years. between 2001 and 2011 it went up 650%---nothing to sneeze at. |
|
|
|
you think that's true? i don't have that much experience to draw on, but teens and twenty-somethings i come across seem pretty into cash app and venmo vs actual cash.
i've been made to feel like a dinosaur more than once for not using them.
I definitely notice that around me, mainly so now that banks are rapidly withdrawing more and more of their atm's. It was always the convenience that people had here knowing that they can withdraw cash from an atm would there be any problems, but that safeguard is being taken away from them. It rightfully worries people as this is a broad problem. No cash means no private transactions when needed and no money to begin with when your digital balance is being frozen for whatever reason. Compared to the majority of the sub 40 age category being fully into plastic and mobile payments it might not look too impressive, but they will eventually pay the price for their ignorance when shit hits the fan. I now make sure to have at least 3 months of cash reserves at home to pay bills and whatnot. Better safe than sorry. i've never come across anyone IRL who was worried about this stuff. only bitcoiners. maybe it's different in the states. not many people are in the "cash under the mattress" mindset. the fact that young people don't use cash leads me to believe that restricting cash in the future will go over fairly easily.  |
|
|
|
It's the place to be if you have something to hide.
Doesn't really surprise me when you realize that one of Poloniex's backers is Goldman Sachs. Banksters always know where to go to circumvent laws and obfuscate some of their nefarious activities. goldman sachs backed circle, who no longer owns poloniex. i assume the sale is complete because poloniex's website already says "Polo Digital Assets, Ltd" and they booted USA customers 10 days ago. i don't think anybody knows who this mysterious new "asian investment group" is. |
|
|
|
I don't think you get how scary this law will be for normal hodlers of cryptocurrency in that country. Don't you get it that even if you are unaware the money you are receiving has somehow been tainted by illicit activities the government has the power to confiscate it at their will? yeah but that's already the letter of the law with rubles and more traditional payment methods. if you get caught receiving stolen goods or illicit fiat proceeds, it's already confiscatable. the government is just extending that legal theory to digital assets, which aren't defined in the law yet. defining cryptocurrency in the law may actually grant it some legitimacy. |
|
|
|
Not so sure about decentralizing mining. I've always thought that Zhan has lately been trying to diversify the company away from mining. If anything this would re-focus Bitmain's efforts as an ASIC supplier.
that's one angle to consider. tbh i've never heard much of anything about micree zhan. regardless, i could see a power struggle or civil war at the heart of bitmain outweighing any such re-focusing efforts. it could drain significant resources and/or make their operation/management inefficient if the two sides don't reconcile quickly. that could open up a vacuum for increased competition among ASIC manufacturers. |
|
|
|
People need to start accepting Bitcoin and keeping it, not converting it.
If you think of Bitcoin as just a virtual placeholder for fiat currency, stable coins will be the future and Bitcoin will slowly fade away.
merchants will (for the most part) be the latest adopters. their overheads and supply lines are paid in fiat. holding bitcoins doesn't pay their bills and exposes them to potentially harmful volatility. there's no reason for them to accept bitcoins directly unless 1. consumers demand it, or 2. it becomes a standard medium of exchange and unit of account. both of those things require mass adoption first. you can't expect merchants to do all the heavy lifting. |
|
|
|
I consider Bitcoin to be hyper-deflationary currently, and I believe that state will come to an end eventually. Once a saturation point is reached and the price levels out over the long term, people who were previously saving will start spending.
but people tend to spend more as the price rises. doesn't that contradict your theory? it doesn't seem like everyone is waiting for some far-off price plateau. people seem to treat bitcoin like any other speculative investment in commodities or real estate---they hold until the price rises and then they sell. it's pure speculation. we don't think of real estate investments in terms of deflation, do we? |
|
|
|
New post.  Is the triangle 2-3 years long? Really! Really boring ... it reminds me of the triangle masterluc drew here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=274613.msg2942495#msg2942495back then we thought there was a long sideways coming too, but really we were just 2 months away from the launch of another bubble. it's hard to imagine reaching the $4000s from here and tbh the proportions of that triangle don't look ideal. i reckon it will be invalidated in time. |
|
|
|
You're also forgetting that whenever people buy stuff with Bitcoin, they can immediately buyback the coins with fiat. There can be situations when this is optimal, for example to avoid large fees on fiat transactions.
i think very few people immediately rebuy the coins they spend. the data bitpay has released supports the idea that people spend bitcoin as a profit-taking measure after price rises. in other words, even the spenders are speculators! |
|
|
|
In my opinion the bitcoin network needs to take responsibility and change so that it has a smaller footprint, it just isn't responsible to burn such a large amount of energy for such little utility. what do you think the legacy banking system runs on, magical fairy dust? no, it runs on massive amounts of energy. same with gold mining, coin minting, etc. that's the correct lens to view bitcoin mining through. this is fundamentally a human problem, not a bitcoin problem. if humans didn't need money, we wouldn't need dollars, gold, or bitcoin. until that problem is solved, the best we can do is steer energy consumption towards sustainable sources. |
|
|
|
Still 188 days until the halving. After that we will see a new ATH between $50k-$70k. Spike could go as insane as $250k so fasten your seatbelts.
My estimate is an ATH in about 250 days....
BUT, isn't buying now because of the halving, and expecting a market rally after the halving, causes the event of the halving priced to be already in? this suggests some people are pricing it in, that's all. based on the actual stock-to-flow relationship, the market hasn't priced in the halving at all. https://www.ccn.com/top-german-bank-predicts-bitcoin-to-hit-90000-after-halving/“If the May 2020 stock-to-flow ratio for Bitcoin is factored into the model, a vertiginous price of around USD 90,000 emerges. This would imply that the forthcoming halving effect has hardly been priced into the current Bitcoin price of approximately USD 8,000 (the current model value is roughly USD 7,500).” -Bayern LB report i remember being bearish in the first half of 2016 and saying things like "the halving is already priced in"......i was totally wrong back then. i don't think any event is ever totally priced in until it happens. |
|
|
|
all you're missing now is @BXRekt's obnoxious "BEYOND GODLIKE" and "triple kill" comments!  (please don't add anything like that....) |
|
|
|
It's been 5 months since Poloniex stole millions from its customers. That was a big step on the way of its downfall, and the Poloniex team has just moved even further to the end of the cliff. Poloniex was famously headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts, which is a good place to do business, with serious regulations, it has moved to the Seychelles islands. weird, didn't they just move to bermuda 4 months ago? https://www.coindesk.com/circle-moves-non-us-poloniex-customers-to-new-bermuda-entityi guess their new asian investor overlords prefer the seychelles? bitmex is registered there, so i assume they are pretty hands off in terms of AML/KYC. Of all offshore centers, the Seychelles are probably the worst. Sure, it's one of the easiest. Anyone can create a company or open a bank account there, and make big deposits with no question asked, but it's impossible to get the money back afterwards. If you're a freelance programmer working in Europe, nobody will give you any kind of work if you want payments made to a bank in the Seychelles. Also, if you have money in the Seychelles and you want to buy property in Europe, it won't work either. Money coming from the Seychelles is seen as money coming from drug dealers or the like. The Seychelles are known worldwide as a money laundering place. If you want to stay clean, there's only one thing to do: avoid doing any business or investment there. So, avoid Poloniex...
not a big problem for crypto-only transactions, which is why bitmex is so huge. operating a fiat exchange from the seychelles seems more problematic. |
|
|
|
another study claimed that 14.4% of americans own cryptocurrency: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5196823.06.2% sounds a lot more reasonable to me, though it might still be exaggerated. that's over 20 million people! Hey, 6.2% is not bad at all IMO. That means there's lots of room for growth. yes sir! the lower the number, the earlier we are in terms of being "early adopters". not a bad problem to have if you ask me. Second, if someone in the US is looking to invest their money in something, it's usually stocks and more specifically 401(k) retirement plans, and if it isn't that it'll either be individual stocks or mutual funds. if an ETF or other bitcoin security makes it possible to invest through 401(k) plans, things are gonna get interesting. |
|
|
|
my point was that all campaigns should be paid per post---ie getting paid for what you would normally post anyway.
fixed payments incentivize people to post > the quota amount, no matter what. that's good for the campaign managers and their clients, but it's bad for the forum. it's hard to gauge the exact effects vs pay per post/no minimum, but it's pretty obvious logically that a required quota will cause more spam.
I partly agree here. Yes, fixed payment with minimum post amount will cause spam especially if the amount is rather high (20 or more per week). However payment per post results in even more spam because people try to write as many posts as possible. Just look at CryptoTalk signature campaign. They limited maximum number of payed posts to 35 per week but that is still too many in my opinion. that's because the standards are way too low in that campaign. paying per post doesn't remove the need for other standards of quality. my point was that fixed-term payments create additional incentives to spam that don't exist with per-post payments. so they are decidedly worse for the forum, period.even if the quota is only 10 or 15 posts a week (and quotas this low are very rare), it forces people to post when they otherwise wouldn't. in other words, post padding. what's even worse is that most of these campaigns remove people who don't meet their quotas. this makes the spam incentive even stronger. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
