Oh, not again...  |
|
|
|
Τελικά όσοι λέγανε ότι Ρωσία/Κίνα δεν θα συμμαχούσαν ποτέ εναντίον των ΗΠΑ φαίνεται να πηγαίνουν κουβά: https://www.euro2day.gr/news/world/article/2245332/poytin-kai-si-yposhontai-na-synergastoyn-enantia-s.htmlΚαι σε τι δεν έχουν πάει κουβά τα τελευταία 4,5 χρόνια...  Θα μαζέψουν ό,τι είναι να μαζέψουν από BTC τα επόμενα χρόνια και μια μέρα θα κάνουν από κοινού ανακοίνωση για πλήρη αποδολαριοποίηση. Και για όποιον θέλει να δει πως είναι η ζωή του μέσου Ρώσου πολίτη, εδώ τα λέει αναλυτικά από πρώτο χέρι: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfMtr9wD7JwΨωμολυσσάει -μας λέει η δυτική προπαγάνδα- ο Ρώσος... «άδεια» τα supermarket...  Η κατάσταση εκεί θυμίζει λίγο από Ελλάδα 2015 με τα capital controls (δεν δούλευαν οι ελληνικές κάρτες στο εξωτερικό). Ε πόσες φορές θα παιχτεί αυτό το νταβατζιλίκι; Μια του κλέφτη, δυό του κλέφτη, θα βρεθεί εναλλακτική για το SWIFT. Bonus: η kWh έχει 2-3 cents μαθαίνω, άρα συμφέρει το BTC mining. Δεν λυπάμαι κανέναν κοιμισμένο, ειδικά κάτι τύπους από πρώην κομμουνιστικά καθεστώτα που βλέπουν την Αμερική ως τον «σωτήρα» του κόσμου, ενώ στην ουσία ο Κομμουνισμός επιστρέφει δριμύτερος από την πίσω πόρτα και μάλιστα με «πολύχρωμο» προσωπείο. Άλλωστε ένας δραπέτης από την ΕΣΣΔ μας είχε προειδοποιήσει δεκαετίες πριν για το woke τσίρκο του σήμερα... δεν κινδυνεύουμε από την (καπιταλιστική) Ρωσία, από την EUSSR και το Νταβός κινδυνεύουμε. |
|
|
|
Η αλήθεια είναι πως ο υψηλός πληθωρισμός αποτελεί κίνητρο για επενδύσεις σε επιχειρήσεις, αρκεί βέβαια να είναι και ευνοϊκό το γενικότερο (φορολογικό) πλαίσιο. Εγώ το καταλαβαίνω ως εξής: ο πληθωρισμός μόνος του είναι ένα σύμπτωμα, δηλαδή δεν αποτελεί κίνητρο. Το κίνητρο είναι η αιτία που υπάρχει πληθωρισμός, και προκαλείται αν κάνεις φθηνό το χρήμα (χαμηλά επιτόκια ή τύπωμα χρήματος). Άρα αυτό που λες, όπως το αντιλαμβάνομαι, είναι πως το να ρίξεις την τιμή του χρήματος ενθαρρύνει τις επενδύσεις σε επιχειρήσεις (με ευνοϊκό κρατικό πλαίσιο). Το οποίο είναι σωστό, γιατί έτσι παίρνουμε περισσότεροι δάνεια, εκ των οποίων πολλά ενδεχομένως να επενδυθούν. Αλλά μέχρι ποιο σημείο συμβαίνει πραγματικά αυτό; Θέλω να πω, αν ρίξεις κατά πολύ τα επιτόκια, δεν προκαλείς μια "υπερθέρμανση" στην οικονομία; Π.χ., housing crisis το 2008. Η γραμμή που διαχωρίζει τον υγιή πληθωρισμό (δηλ. αυτόν που φέρνει ανάπτυξη) από τον ανθυγιεινό φαίνεται να βασίζεται αυθαίρετα στην ερμηνεία του καθενός. Υπάρχουν αντικειμενικά στοιχεία που δείχνουν ότι η Τουρκία καλπάζει έστω και με υψηλότερο πληθωρισμό (όχι υπερπληθωρισμό), ενώ η Ελλάδα έχει μείνει στάσιμη εδώ και 20+ χρόνια: https://tradingeconomics.com/greece/gdphttps://tradingeconomics.com/turkey/gdpΟ Τούρκος γενικά επενδύει σε διάφορα προκειμένου να μην του απαξιωθεί το χρήμα και αυτό ανεβάζει την οικονομική δραστηριότητα. Το fiat χρήμα είναι απλά μια ψευδαίσθηση για να κινείται η οικονομία και όταν αυτό στερεύει, τότε όλα παγώνουν (πάγωσε ακόμα και η οικοδομή 15+ χρόνια τώρα και λόγω ΕΝΦΙΑ/φορολογίας 35% -> πάρε ενοίκια στον θεό). Δεν ήταν πάντα έτσι η Ελλάδα. Πριν 15+ χρόνια Αμερική και Ευρωζώνη είχαν περίπου το ίδιο ΑΕΠ (15 τρις), ενώ σήμερα η Αμερική είναι στα 27 τρις, ενώ εμείς δεν κάναμε αντίστοιχο άλμα. Το χρέος όμως έκανε μεγάλο άλμα, με το ΑΕΠ να παραμένει σχετικά στάσιμο: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/opinion/article/2023/09/04/the-gdp-gap-between-europe-and-the-united-states-is-now-80_6123491_23.htmlΜακροοικονομικά τον έχουμε πιεί πολλαπλώς, γιατί ο Σόιμπλε και η Μέρκελ επέβαλλαν λιτότητα από τα Lidl. Περιττό να αναφέρω ότι καταδίκασαν 2 γενιές σε φτώχεια... Θα πρέπει να μπουν οπτικές ίνες (FTTH) παντού για εγγυημένα υψηλό upload, πάνω σε αυτές να κουμπώσουν κάμερες (όπως συμβαίνει στην Κίνα) που θα τροφοδοτούν την AI με δεδομένα για ανάλυση, να μπουν διάφοροι αισθητήρες ανίχνευσης και να βγάλουν όλοι οι πολίτες την νέα RFID ταυτότητα (η κάμερα πιάνει πρόσωπα, αλλά μπορεί κάποιος να φοράει μάσκα, οπότε πρέπει να ταυτοποιηθεί αλλιώς). Πάντως στην Κίνα δεν χρειάζεται να δουν το πρόσωπό σου στην κάμερα για να καταλάβουν ποιος είσαι, κάνουν ανάλυση του τρόπου που περπατάς και βγάζουν αποτελέσματα, π.χ. πόσο γρήγορα περπατάς, τι ρούχα φοράς συνήθως, κλπ. (Δεν έχω source, το έχω ακούσει απλά) Αυτό το κάνουν και οι άνθρωποι εμπειρικά (π.χ. στο Svalbard που φοράνε συνέχεια σκούφους και μάσκες λόγω κρύου), οπότε δεν μου κάνει εντύπωση αν μπορεί να εκπαιδευτεί και ένα νευρωνικό δίκτυο να κάνει το ίδιο. Κάποια στιγμή θα πεθάνουν οι παλιοί και οι νέοι δεν θα ξέρουν πως ήταν κάποτε οι παλιές ταινίες της Disney... Πολύ άσχημο να λογοκρίνεις την τέχνη. Η κάθε ταινία, το κάθε τραγούδι κλπ, είναι φτιαγμένο για τα ιδανικά (και στερεότυπα αν θες) της εποχής του. Αν θες μη διαιωνίζεις τα ιδανικά αυτά, αλλά μη το λογοκρίνεις κι όλας... (Η ταινία του λινκ ποια είναι btw;) Κάποια από την συνδρομή της Disney, δεν ξέρω ακριβώς. |
|
|
|
The harder it becomes to mine a single BTC, the more miners will have to charge for selling their BTC.
And vice versa, back in May 2021 we saw a huge hashrate reduction (China miner exodus) and a BTC price reduction at the same time. It's a self-regulating mechanism.
You just managed to destroy your theory one line after If there was a huge hashrate reduction, that means the remaining miners had more income , they were getting twice as many Bitcoins for the same consumption so why they would have to be forced to dump like previously, cutting offers to the market so, but why did the price have to go down so sharply exactly after the news while the hashrate was still intact? The price went down because it was bad news, price dropped nearly 40% in one week, the rate dropped continuously for one and a half months afterward while ironically the price started to surge, so which one is it? Higher prices because of lower costs or lower costs and lower price or as we see now record both?  Higher hashrate = higher difficulty = higher mining cost Lower hashrate = lower difficulty = lower mining cost As simple as that. Do you honestly think BTC would retain its current price if everyone abandoned it? No, it would drop to 2009 prices. Some miners sell regularly (because they have to pay their bills), while others are hodlers/speculative miners (they're even willing to mine at a loss). I know the feeling, it's normal for people to try to see patterns in something, to try to establish causation and correlation but, it's simply not here in this case. It's the free market pattern in a nutshell. Nothing fancy. And with 8 hours of peak sun (Germany gets 5 on averge), you need 30 of them for one miner, so ~$3000, then an equivalent of at least 24kwh of battery storage (at least), and all that to make 10$ a day from a $5000 upfront machine, dirt cheap you say? €1600 for 8 kW sounds dirt cheap to me (China production surplus helps). It's not just for mining, nor did I say anything about going off-the-grid, most people don't care about BTC, but to reduce their electricity bills in general. Mining is a bonus. I don't mind people investing in renewable energy, as long as it follows the free market principles and not some ESG centralized planning/state subsidies BS. |
|
|
|
When asked if the updated bitcoin production cost estimate of $45,000 implies that JPMorgan expects the bitcoin price to rise to that level, Panigirtzoglou told The Block that while the current bitcoin production cost estimate stands at $45,000, it still maintains the $42,000 level for the medium term. Why do they keep with this stupid assumption? Bitcoin is not mining for coal or drilling for oil, you can't cut production, there will still be 450 Bitcoin mined every day, and you can't support the price if something is more expensive to mine, you will just have some miners quit and the ones in profit will keep on mining, mining cost will NEVER influence the price! If such thing were true then all the community would have to do is invest just 10 billion in gear and voila, the hashrate is doubled, the cost per Bitcoin is doubled do suddenly we're at 90k per coin and we have gained 500 billion in market cap, but things don't work like this! Price determines the hashrate, not the other way around. It goes both ways. Unless you really think JPMorgan doesn't know what they're talking about. 10 years ago the hashrate was a lot lower, therefore the mining cost was also lower. Miners have to sell at a certain price to break-even. 10 years from now the mining cost will be a lot higher, I reckon. Back in 2009 the mining cost was dirt cheap due to CPU mining, that's why you saw people selling 10k BTC for €20. The harder it becomes to mine a single BTC, the more miners will have to charge for selling their BTC. And vice versa, back in May 2021 we saw a huge hashrate reduction (China miner exodus) and a BTC price reduction at the same time. It's a self-regulating mechanism. Btw, solar panels of 410W cost €79.99 currently. An array of 20 panels seems dirt cheap for a typical household. ps: Suggesting that TSMC can ramp up their 3nm wafer production, so that the hashrate will be doubled in a short amount of time is a pipe dream. The BTC network grows organically. TSMC also has to produce chips for Apple, Nvidia, AMD etc. That also makes 51% harder to achieve, unless pools decide to collude and destroy their precious income. Price determines the hashrate, not the other way around. If you find a way to mine bitcoin with very low cost, won't that influence the price? The total bitcoin entering the circulation will remain 450 every day, but your share increases, and that alone, can influence the price. Let me give an example. Suppose we have 450 EH/s total hashrate. You find near zero electricity cost in Hypothetical-Islands. It only takes $10,000 to mine a bitcoin there, while it costs $50,000 the least to your competitors. Since you're with $56,000 profit for every bitcoin mined, you decide to make a big investment in infrastructure, mining at 50 EH/s. Adding this to 450, and total hashrate becomes 500 EH/s. Your competitor might be selling it at $51,000 to make $1000 profit, but you can drop it a lot less than that, making it unprofitable to them. Then, they'll have to shut down their operations, and you can take their hashrate by expanding your operations in Hypothetical-Islands. You're practically taking a large portion of the pie, and have the flexibility to sell it for a lower price than your competitors, while expanding the hashrate. Have I missed anything? Nuclear fusion could be the Hypothetical Island, but we won't see it before 2050. |
|
|
|
|
Many people have already stopped using plastic/physical cards in favor of virtual ones... they even prefer to pay with smart watches.
I would call this proto-CBDC.
Personally, I prefer plastic cards because they require no electricity/internet from me (unlike smartphones).
What if my phone battery runs out? What if I'm stuck to GPRS? Plastic solves these problems.
Regarding MasterCard and Visa, I think they will evolve towards a new business model (crypto -> CBDC bridge). They're aware of the potential of the emerging crypto market.
MasterCard is affiliated with DCG, so they're not going away.
Hell, these days we even see telcos offering money transmission services (i.e. Cosmote/Payzy).
|
|
|
|
With how fierce the Biden administration has been against the crypto/Blockchain industry, [...]
What are you talking about? Bitcoin went up 500% under president Biden.Trump promises radical change to our country and to our economy. His plan to deport 5% of the residents of the USA alone will wreak havoc on our economy. Bitcoin can be used to pay for illegal abortions, so his administration will probably want to shut it down the minute the election is over. The safe bet here is to stick with Biden and the Democrats. I understand you suffer from huge Orange Man phobia, but why the hell would someone spend their precious Bitcoin to fund illegal abortions?  Why not use cash or XMR? I've heard tons of stupid arguments from no-coiners, but this probably tops it all! |
|
|
|
Never ever ever invite government into your business, they never do anything good.
Based on your comments here, it would appear that you are fine with the Chinese government and the Iranian government being involved in business in the US, just not the American government preventing them from doing so. Interesting.... The Trump administration would have done the same thing, so you should actually be okay with what Biden is doing here. No. You don't want the government in ANY business. It's always comes it disguised as something helpful and eventually mutates into it's intended malicious intent. Biden does give a rats ass about security, that's a fact. We have a coordinated narrative that Warren is on with "security" and Iran. It's about the money, they can't manipulate BTC.  |
|
|
|
Storing and sending/receiving blocks and transactions are not done "for free". This is the only way to be certain that your ledger is intact, pure, true. And it's not that it costs a thousand dollars to do it. You just need a decent Internet connection, any modern computer and a terabyte.
i don't know. to me it just seems like the people that are supporting the network by running full nodes and letting other people connect to them and download blocks or relay transactions, they should be getting a piece of the pie. not just the miners. you can't just tack on a feature like that later on though. it would have had to have been designed that way from the beginning.  I guess torrent seeding is considered "slavery" too, since there's no monetary benefit... why am i going to sit there being a server to other people downloading it? i know that's a bad attitude to have but that's the way alot of people are. probably why most torrents eventually dry up and no seeders are left. that could happen to bitcoin too possibly unless people see some kind of benefit from serving up the blockchain to other people for free... You're the epitome of FYIGM. When you hodl BTC, it's in your best interest to not let it die and give something back (even if it's just a node/blockchain explorer).  ps: That's why the best torrent trackers are private and strictly enforce a 1:1 ratio. So yes, you can tack on such a feature later on, although it would have been much better if game theory was built-in (like PoW does). For me it's not a big deal... if you generally leave your computer 24/7/365 online, it doesn't hurt to seed a bit more. It's not like I consume more electricity (that's why ASICs are a deal-breaker for regular home usage, unlike RPi nodes). |
|
|
|
From the standpoint of the average consumer, there is no difference. It's just a different way of betting on the Bitcoin meme, which is all most people actually want to do with Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a meme(coin)? Interesting take. As for why consumers want this, I've discussed this before in the Anon Paradox: consumers want to keep their "big" money someplace... safe--even if they would like to keep their "small money" someplace anonymous. In other words: - Most people don't want to hide their life savings in a mattress.
- Most people don't want to put their retirement savings inside of their iPhone where they can simply lose it in a landfill.
- Most people would be afraid somebody might physically steal it from them if they kept their own savings or major holdings on their person.
- Most people don't want to build a mini version of Fort Knox in their spare bedroom.
- Most people don't like the idea of having something in their house that others might kill for.
In other words, you work all of your life to be a great dentist, and somebody else focuses their life's efforts on, say, keeping your money safe. That's why we have banks and other financial institutions. It's not a government conspiracy, it's just a product that consumers want and need. And Coinbase and the ETF are really just variants of the same product. I'm pretty sure a banker wouldn't like it to be a dentist... It's much better to be able to be the sole issuer of money (unlike dentists who don't have a monopoly in their profession). You print a piece of paper that in reality is worth 10 cents and you claim it's worth $100 or even €500 or 1000 CHF. Then people are forced to enter the rat race and never escape. I don't know if it's a conspiracy or not, but I'm pretty sure 80% of human beings are deeply insecure to trust themselves, therefore bankers (and the state) fill the niche of providing "security". Because of this, most people use an amazing invention of civilization called, "specialization". There is some debate about the advent of civilization and whether it really benefitted us. Homo Sapiens started as a decentralized species (hunter gatherers/tribes of 150 people) that is slowly leaning towards centralization (urbanization). It's not just CEX and mining pools that promote centralization... forming cities/armies/governments 10k years ago was the start of centralization. I understand why people did it, you gain so much power compared to small tribes of hunter gatherers. Same for mining pools vs solo miners. |
|
|
|
This either means he cannot spend them (for reasons I mentioned above) or he's probably dead/lost the keys (same speculation about Satoshi's coins). Someone could even send them to a burn address, but who would do that? Maybe for trolling purposes, who knows. Most thieves steal money to become rich (high risk -> jail, high reward -> luxurious life), otherwise there is not much point in the first place. Why risk it if there's no reward? |
|
|
|
if Coinbase (their custodian) goes down they have enough in insurance and additional funds to cover the losses OK, that's what I thought. This is a problem, because if Bitcoin becomes the global reserve currency or asset, then we can't rely on other currencies or assets to insure it. At the moment, if 100,000 BTC are lost, they can pay $6B on paper and that's it. They can't buy what they can't insure, so even if they have $20T, they can't use half of it to buy bitcoin. Am I wrong anywhere? What I'm trying to say is that you shouldn't worry about ordinary thieves. You should worry more about legalized thieves wearing suits, if you get my drift... I get it, I'm just thinking what happens in a scenario where these people get ripped off by a hacker. It has happened before, just not with BlackRock. It won't be lost, they'll use chain analysis to find out where the funds went. Even if someone wanted to use a DEX to exchange stolen BTC for XMR, then there's not enough liquidity for 100k BTC. It would be the heist of the century perhaps, but you wouldn't be able to do much with it (I don't mean daily expenses, but purchasing a big house, Lambo -> all these stuff require KYC). As for not relying on other currencies, why not, the USD is the global reserve currency It is the global reserve currency in 2024. Will it still be the global reserve currency in 2034? Nobody can say it for sure... and you can still have your deposit insured even if you're not in the US! Non-US investors don't have access to BlackRock's ETF or any other US ETF. |
|
|
|
Another reason I can think of is the fee
I think some ETF collect fee as low as 0.1% to 0.25% not including Grayscale and this fee is smaller than Coinbase trading fee. You're comparing apples to oranges. Trading incurs a one-time fee, while ETFs charge you a yearly fee for merely keeping your assets (no CEX does that). It's even worse when you're not even allowed to withdraw BTC, so you're forced to keep it there. So every year BlackRock (or even worse Grayscale) take a certain amount of satoshis from you. Most investors don't mind it though, because they measure their wealth in USD, not BTC. |
|
|
|
The only difference is that Coinbase allows you to withdraw BTC to a personal wallet, while ETFs only allow you to withdraw USD. That's why Grayscale ETF holders have to convert to USD first and then send those dollars to BlackRock to buy BTC ETF. It's quite tedious in a sense, but for people who don't intend to ever use a BTC wallet it sounds rather convenient. Besides that, the ETF marketing makes it more appealing to institutional investors. These folks treat BTC ownership like they treat home/car ownership (they don't mind custodians keeping their property titles). In general I'd say they blindly trust the Military - Industrial complex (the state and multinational corporations/Mega Corps). Reputable exchanges have Proof of Reserves these days. That wasn't a thing before the FTX meltdown. Also, with the crackdown on mixers a thief will have a hard time to launder stolen BTC... assuming that someone can find a mixer with a huge anonymity set, which is highly unlikely. What worries me about BTC ETF is that they'll try to turn it into CBDC. BlackRock will attach ESG variables into it, whether it's carbon credits and/or social credit score. If you're Bill Gates or Klaus Schwab, that shouldn't worry you (for obvious reasons). But what if you're an Average Joe ETF investor? What if AI catches you "misgendering" (that's just one example of "hate speech") someone on social media and that gives the necessary power to BlackRock to legally confiscate your BTC ETF share? What I'm trying to say is that you shouldn't worry about ordinary thieves. You should worry more about legalized thieves wearing suits, if you get my drift... Even banksters won't steal you like an ordinary thief would do. They have legal ways to steal your wealth and there's nothing you can do about it (apart from not using these institutions). I sincerely hope I'm wrong, even though I'm not an ETF investor. But what if I'm right? Do you honestly expect no-coiners/woke/SJWs to criticize BlackRock for their dubious business practices? Rest assured they won't. They will support TechnoCommunism with a passion. Again: I hope I'm wrong, but feel free to bookmark my post for future reference. |
|
|
|
I guess torrent seeding is considered "slavery" too, since there's no monetary benefit... People forget that back in 2009 nodes & miners were the same thing (due to CPU mining), even though they are decoupled today, because ASICs are quite expensive. |
|
|
|
Άλλος ένας λόγος να πάει η Κίνα στο Bitcoin (θεωρώ ότι μαζεύουν ήδη προληπτικά): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRdcXENcGI0Φυσικά και η Δύση θα πυροβολήσει τα πόδια της... τέλος τα Made in China -> αχαρτογράφητα νερά για πληθωρισμό. |
|
|
|
I've warned people long time ago that the Bitcoin community has been infiltrated by trojan horses... some "Bitcoiners" are undercover feds.
Who, in your opinion, do you think fits that classification? I'm not going to give names, but if you see someone claiming for example that 24/7/365 surveillance ("All seeing eye" as they put it) is a "good" thing for society, then that should raise a couple of red flags at least. Others hide better their intentions with extravagant claims (aka red herring) about "defending" your privacy. Even back in the 90s I remember undercover feds lurking in IRC networks (the decentralized IRC network was the forefather of the centralized Discord app that many people use these days). Stay vigilant... |
|
|
|
If Bitcoin forks to be more like Monero, all the above benefits though are lost in an instant. Are anonymous payments worth that much over destroying what has already been built on bitcoin? I'd argue that this change would only bring more censorship by giving credence to FEDs and legislators to destroy all BTC infrastructure as it could more easily be deemed a notorious market. Infrastructure = miners/nodes ? LOL, in that case, good luck with that. Feds have no chance of banning Bitcoin worldwide even if Core developers merge a privacy protocol. That would destroy all crypto businesses and could actually contribute to a recession in many countries. Recession in which countries? BTC has had 3 huge bear markets so far and no country was affected. I agree that no one can ban it, but with 1% global adoption it's hyperbolic to claim it's going to cause recession in many countries. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
