if no one sells a single bitcoin because everyone never sells... then there is no market. no price
trying to create a mass pump and dump group never lasts. what you need to learn is proper economics of bitcoin
imagine the underlying most efficient mining costs as the below market floor(foundation) and above that is the speculative market. if you want to aid bitcoins market then the underlying foundations of the market need to be pushed up to then have a better speculative market ontop, a market that people can then openly trade on at higher prices. thus not need any scheming pump and dump army. but instead a healthy market with healthy foundations getting stronger
Absolutely. if there is no sellers and no buyers then there will be no transactions. There is no offering in price. BTC is just like a sand in a beach. There will be no value there will be no bid and ask. It will never appreciate value because it is just being kept. If it is just being kept, then there will be no circulation, no transaction, no fees, no minings. That's how important the liquidity is in the market. The last Bitcoin will be mined around the year 2140, which is why the sell side of order book is secured for at least another 117 years  I bought each of my children 2.625 Bitcoins. In my will, there is a clause that will prohibit them from selling the 2.625 Bitcoins. They will only be allowed to sell the portion IF I accumulate above this amount. However, they will still be able to use the 2.625 Bitcoins for refinancing according to the strategy attached to the will. |
|
|
|
Да, нет тут никаких противоречий. Для того, чтобы мне понять, что Биткоин скоро начнет расти мне достаточно получить информацию, что большинство трейдеров готовы его шортить, что на рынок пришло новое поколение хомяков, которое не уважает Биткоин, и никогда не видели, КАК он умеет расти.
Отсюда задача - я должен почувствовать такие настроения... Ведь я могу ошибаться, и общее настроение может как раз накопить себе по 2 Биткоина, и школьники сейчас экономят на завтраках, чтобы приобрести вожделенные сатоши.
Как я могу поступить? Я вот как раз могу внедриться в сообщество молодых хомяков - трейдеров и проникнуться их идеями - что они планируют делать, какие их ценности. Потому что рынок будет поступать ПРОТИВ их ценностей и действий.
Это и есть научный принцип половинчатости человеческих знаний. Невозможно знать, как будет, но есть шанс узнать, как НЕ БУДЕТ.
И раньше такой метод работал, только тут надо найти сообщество чистых хомяков, незамутненных опытом и знаниями.
Ну во-первых важно не то, что хотят делать игроки. Важно то, что они делают. Во-вторых полнотой информации на этом рынке не обладает никто, даже владельцы бирж, так как бирж десятки и все они расположены в разных частях света. Что создает практически бесконечное количество возможных стратегий игроков - например я могу шортить на 5-ти биржах, открывать лонг на 5-ти других и это только простейшее хеджирование. Ну и в-третьих, как ты поймешь, та информация которую ты получаешь, это истинные намерения игроков или они просто хотят тебя ввести в заблуждение? |
|
|
|
So why is the number 21 million so important? Is it a magical number or your religion?
The number is not important as if it can create value, altcoins including Bitcoin forks should have good value. In fact they are dead coins with no value. With failures and deads of Bitcoin forks, altcoins you can see the number fails to create value if there are no good fundamentals, strong hashrate, good decentralization, good developments. Some altcoins try to set shorter havling cycle like one year or two years but fail to have good halving bull runs. There are some insights about that number but only Satoshi Nakamoto knows why he used that number. He explained it in some of his emails. How is the 21M bitcoin cap defined and enforced?It means you don't understand why Satoshi chose 21 million. Nevertheless, it doesn't bother you. But does it bother you that I propose 2.625 bitcoins as optimal bet in this game? |
|
|
|
--snip--
Allow me to answer your question with a question. Strictly speaking, Bitcoin can be "printed" by changing just one line of its source code. And if 51% of miners reach a consensus around this version of Bitcoin, we could indeed increase the maximum supply to 30 million or 50 million. So, why is the number 21 million significant? Is it some kind of religious belief? /** The amount of satoshis in one BTC. */
static constexpr CAmount COIN = 100000000;
/** No amount larger than this (in satoshi) is valid.
*
* Note that this constant is *not* the total money supply, which in Bitcoin
* currently happens to be less than 21,000,000 BTC for various reasons, but
* rather a sanity check. As this sanity check is used by consensus-critical
* validation code, the exact value of the MAX_MONEY constant is consensus
* critical; in unusual circumstances like a(nother) overflow bug that allowed
* for the creation of coins out of thin air modification could lead to a fork.
* */
static constexpr CAmount MAX_MONEY = 21000000 * COIN;
1. Consensus involve all Bitcoiner, not only Bitcoiner who happen to be miner. 2. Even if miners (who have total >51% hash-rate) decide to change total amount of BTC, other people who use BTC would ignore their block by default since it violate existing Bitcoin protocol. 3. IMO number 21 million isn't significant, it's just arbitrary number. 4. The change definitely require more than one line of code, such as re-determining mining reward. So why is the number 21 million so important? Is it a magical number or your religion? |
|
|
|
again if no one is selling . ill repeat.. IF NO ONE IS SELLING.. there is no market nor price
imagine a fruit stall with no fruit to sell.. then realise there is no market stall, its just an empty table and a guy twiddling his thumbs not doing anything all day,week,year
nothing to sell =no market
then when the pump and dump group get permission to finally sell.. then you will just see the market crash. with everyone trying to cash out at once.
learn the economics. learn how things actually work and other ways to help the market prosper.. because your outdated and flawed vision of a massive pump and dump group is not the method, i explained a better method in last post
Also, this theory of accumulating Bitcoin to a few hundred thousand people would be dead when the massive adoption takes place. Your absurd thesis is easily refuted by a simple fact. https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html |
|
|
|
2099999997690000sat /8m = 262499999.71125 is just a rounding error.
it still does not make your scenario fix itself to suddenly be correct
if you however mentioned a completely different number BELOW 2.43 instead of anything like 2.62X you might have had some rational amount to still be in a market.
but you still held strong on your all coin put in cold wallet and never sold.
thus again the scenario you presented still failed
even when you tried to meander into analogies of secondary market of futures of mortgage debt and oil contracts. you failed to understand their economics. especially if the base market was not operating. thus causing negative affect on the secondary temporary contract market which too would not last
heres a hint if/when they ban all oil trade in say 2050. there will be no oil market. thus.. no oil futures market. you cant have an oils futures market if there is no oil spot market
Once again, I want to remind you that all mathematical models, including mathematical model of Bitcoin, are abstract. I am not a theorist in this game, and my bet of 2.625 bitcoins is placed. Whether you make the same bet or decide to short Bitcoin is entirely your choice. Understanding mathematically complex models is a skill possessed only by ~0.01% of individuals who hold a PhD in mathematics. The remaining ~99.99% humans are left with only belief since they may not comprehend these models or they might not even grasp that mathematics is a pure abstraction. The generalised logistic function or Richards' curve (1959) was developed for growth modelling (extension of logistic). The model has been modified by Sugden (1981) and Satoshi (2008)
Wt[t]=W(1-(1-m)Exp[-k(t-T)/(m^(m/(1 - m)))])^(1/(1- m))
W=21000000
k=0.002625
m=0.3909
T=165.6
|
|
|
|
Это ничего общего с пониманием направления цены не имеет. Мы уже обсуждали в другой теме, что такие вот советы должны всегда вызывать вопрос, а зачем кому-то столь успешному и знающему ими делиться с теми, кто считает, что понять, куда пойдет цена биткоина, - невозможно. Если это невозможно, то какой смысл куда-то там внедряться и кого-то слушать, ведь невозможно означает, что для всех это невозможно, и для того сообщества молодых трейдеров в том числе. А если это все таки возможно, то Вы тогда сами себе противоречите. И в таком случае тогда нужно учиться понимать, как это для вас - невозможно, а кто-то другой таки умудряется это делать. Проблема в том, что все хотят знать куда пойдет цена. Но предсказать движение цены с вероятностью 100% не может никто в Мире, это не сможет сделать ни одна сколько угодно сложная математическая модель. Но если предсказать движание цены невозможно, тогда о чем должен думать трейдер? Настоящий трейдер должен думать исключительно о размере позиции, свободном предложении и волатильности актива. Имея эти данные он сможет подобрать оптимальную ставку в этой игре. Которая как я уже неоднократно заявлял составляет 2.625 Bitcoin |
|
|
|
У крипты в целом и у битка, точнее у крупных альтов нет байбека. Есть аналоги у Мейкер, вроде читал что-то об этом. А в целом у топовых альтов байбеков нет. Поэтому и пошло такое различие. Но при крупных траблах даже байбеки могут не спасти. Но байбеки на вершине рынка — это такое себе. Всегда удивлялся нерациональности этого мероприятия. Просто некуда девать бабло.
"Байбеки" Bitcoin - это торговые комиссии бирж и процентная ставка за займы Bitcoin шортистами. Если ты посчитаешь комиссии, которые взяли все спотовые биржи за год, то ты будешь несколько удивлен этими "байбеками", не говоря уже о доходах лендиг продуктов, маржиналки и фьючерсов Чем быстрее вращается эта рулетка - тем больше "байбеков"  Если эту рулетку раскрутить до 99.9% скорости света, то байбеки будут стремиться к бесконечности, а свободное предложение Bitcoin к нулю ну все-таки байбеки они из прибыли идут и как правило с одной целью - уменьшить количество акций в обороте, а значит увеличить цену одной акции. У битка и так все с этим в порядке, эмиссия понятна, предложение падает с каждым халвингом и в теории (строго в теории) цена за биток со временем должна только расти, но в крипте , в отличие от акций, все-таки рычагов влияния у пользователей побольше. Биток можно холдить, продать, купить, выйти, зайти в любое удобное тебе время 24\7 открыто казино, ограничений нет (ну кроме прохождения процедур проверки AML в некоторых случаях) и вариантов, как и рисков у обычного инвестора\холдера тут больше, поэтому сам байбек тут не очень актуален, здесь все делает рынок, когда на дне медвежки "пылесосит" биток из одних рук, в другие и также на бычке, когда киты сливают уже свой биток по цепочке вниз. Если честно, мне кажется ты плохо понимаешь принцип взымания торговых комиссий. Торговые комиссии на бирже как правило взымаются с того, что ты получаешь - при продаже Bitcoin биржа взымает с тебя торговую комиссию в USD, при покупке биржа взымает с тебя комиссию в BTC. Эта стратегия имеет определенные плюсы, чем взымание комиссии всегда в BTC или всегда в USD. Но сейчас речь не об этом. Простой умозрительный эксперимент: представь, что мы раскрутили эту рулетку под название припторынок до "99.9% скорости света" и торговый обьем на покупку за скажем следующие 10 лет составит 21 миллиард Bitcoin на всех биржа Мира (допустим на биржах свободное предложение будет держаться в районе 1 миллион Bitcoin и мы 2100 раз его прокрутим за 10 лет ли 210 раз в год), тогда при комисси 0.1% биржи заработают 21 миллион Bitcoin чистой прибыли и это только с покупок Ключевое ты написал правильно " биржи заработают" и это правда, но к байбеку в классическом понимании это не относится. К увеличению капитала бирж и оборотов относится, к увеличению количества сделок тоже, но на жизни конкретного холдера\акционера может вообще никак не отразиться. Прибыль биржи как правило не перетекает к холдерам битка. В случае конкретного акционера байбек обязательно вносит как-то влияние, как правило повышение цены из-за уменьшения количества акций, но для холдера\миноритария битка от того, что растут обороты пользы может и не быть. Вернее она есть, в случае роста цены битка, но роста может и не быть, обороты на биржах бодро растут и в дни падений на 20-30% и биржи на падении также бодро зарабатывают, как и на росте, в отличие от холдеров\миноритариев битка, так что прибыль бирж для холдера не показатель и обогащает только владельцев бирж, в отличие от "классического" байбека, где выкуп акций компаний должен с большой вероятностью потянуть курс вверх и увеличить капитал миноритариев. Биржи - это и есть "акционеры" биткоина. Именно биржи заинтесрваны сокращать свободное предложение биткоин и увеличивать на него цену, ведь тогда их прибыль от торговых комиссий растёт. Так что в каком то смысле комиссии в Bitcoin - это перманентный "байбек" Ну давай возьмём 1 триллион долларов объем торгов Coinbase за год, умножим его на 10, тоесть допустим на рынке есть ещё 10 бирж с объемом в 1 триллион. Для простоты подсчётов среднюю цену биткоин возьмём 25000. Нехитрый подсчет даёт нам 400000 Bitcoin в год, которые биржи выручат от комиссий и это только с покупок, не считая 10 миллиардов американских долларов прибыли с продаж. 400000 Bitcoin в год это "байбек" не меньше байбеков Эппл Если цена биткоин будет держаться на уровне 25000, а объем торгов не сократится, то в виде комиссии за 10 лет биржи должны получить 4 миллионов биткоин, а за 52.5 года 21 миллион |
|
|
|
If everyone can be an intelligent investor and succeed with their investment, who will pay them money for profit?
The market is zero sum game so money will change from losers to winners. If we all are winners, is it realistic? There must be losers who pay the cost, the profit for winners.
Trading is a zero sum game while investing is a positive sum game — but something being a positive sum game doesn't mean that everyone will win. Positive sum doesn't mean everyone will win — but majority of people can win. Investing in the stocks of a company, for example, one that manufactures auto is not a zero-sum game because the company produces goods, namely auto, and creates added value. Investing in Bitcoin, on the other hand, is purely a zero-sum game, minus transactional costs. Understand that we are not building, producing, or inventing anything in this process. |
|
|
|
Aren't they already? So there is no need for Bitcoin to have a status like that ( the one you're saying ) but if that happens then many Bitcoin users are going to be happy about that. Bitcoin's adoption is already wide but it's still possible for it to become even wider. What is only unlikely is if it will replace the current global financial system. So many banks and financial institutions are against it, so they won't let that happen.
Maybe Peter and Paul played a big role in spreading Christianity but before it, I think we have Moses. I like Moses better to be the equivalent of Michael Saylor because like Moses who help the slaves, Saylor also help the people against the modern-day slavery through Bitcoin.
Bitcoin is an online digital currency and if it take over the global currency then it is going to aid the future adoption of Bitcoin as a digital and also a global currency. It is obvious that Michael Saylor is a Bitcoin optimist and alway agitate about the use and adoption of Bitcoin buying large holdings of it for the future. I don't see how Christianity is related to this although I don't really understand more about what op is trying to pass but I think this is a separate person that is different from the men of God in the Bible and there characters are different entirely. Money's value is intricately tied to human belief, trust, and confidence in its ability to serve as a reliable medium of exchange and store of wealth. Without the collective faith in its worth, money would lose its effectiveness as a tool for economic transactions and societal functioning. |
|
|
|
8m * 2.625=21m
21m = all coins existing now plus al coins fresh mined for the next 117 years.
knowing there is only 19.44m coins currently.
the most 8 million people can equally own is not 2.625. but 2.43btc of just current curculation
if we were to go with his math his 8m* 2.625 never selling is ALL CURRENT PLUS FUTURE POSSIBLE COINS never selling.
locking up all 21m means locking up ALL coins from now until the year 2140 when the network finally produces the 21mth coin he thinks should be locked up too. meaning for 117years all current calls and all new coins minted are not to be sold.
meaning no market for the next 117 year
You say that my idea is abstract, but I don't deny that. I described an ideal strategy, but the world is not perfect. The total number of mined bitcoins will never reach 21 million, as the Bitcoin code includes a function that asymptotically approaches 21 million but never reaches it. So, to criticize me for abstraction is the same as criticizing the abstraction of the Bitcoin idea itself. Indeed, all mathematics is abstract, and that's its beauty. |
|
|
|
У крипты в целом и у битка, точнее у крупных альтов нет байбека. Есть аналоги у Мейкер, вроде читал что-то об этом. А в целом у топовых альтов байбеков нет. Поэтому и пошло такое различие. Но при крупных траблах даже байбеки могут не спасти. Но байбеки на вершине рынка — это такое себе. Всегда удивлялся нерациональности этого мероприятия. Просто некуда девать бабло.
"Байбеки" Bitcoin - это торговые комиссии бирж и процентная ставка за займы Bitcoin шортистами. Если ты посчитаешь комиссии, которые взяли все спотовые биржи за год, то ты будешь несколько удивлен этими "байбеками", не говоря уже о доходах лендиг продуктов, маржиналки и фьючерсов Чем быстрее вращается эта рулетка - тем больше "байбеков" Если эту рулетку раскрутить до 99.9% скорости света, то байбеки будут стремиться к бесконечности, а свободное предложение Bitcoin к нулю ну все-таки байбеки они из прибыли идут и как правило с одной целью - уменьшить количество акций в обороте, а значит увеличить цену одной акции. У битка и так все с этим в порядке, эмиссия понятна, предложение падает с каждым халвингом и в теории (строго в теории) цена за биток со временем должна только расти, но в крипте , в отличие от акций, все-таки рычагов влияния у пользователей побольше. Биток можно холдить, продать, купить, выйти, зайти в любое удобное тебе время 24\7 открыто казино, ограничений нет (ну кроме прохождения процедур проверки AML в некоторых случаях) и вариантов, как и рисков у обычного инвестора\холдера тут больше, поэтому сам байбек тут не очень актуален, здесь все делает рынок, когда на дне медвежки "пылесосит" биток из одних рук, в другие и также на бычке, когда киты сливают уже свой биток по цепочке вниз. Если честно, мне кажется ты плохо понимаешь принцип взымания торговых комиссий. Торговые комиссии на бирже как правило взымаются с того, что ты получаешь - при продаже Bitcoin биржа взымает с тебя торговую комиссию в USD, при покупке биржа взымает с тебя комиссию в BTC. Эта стратегия имеет определенные плюсы, чем взымание комиссии всегда в BTC или всегда в USD. Но сейчас речь не об этом. Простой умозрительный эксперимент: представь, что мы раскрутили эту рулетку под название припторынок до "99.9% скорости света" и торговый обьем на покупку за скажем следующие 10 лет составит 21 миллиард Bitcoin на всех биржа Мира (допустим на биржах свободное предложение будет держаться в районе 1 миллион Bitcoin и мы 2100 раз его прокрутим за 10 лет ли 210 раз в год), тогда при комисси 0.1% биржи заработают 21 миллион Bitcoin чистой прибыли и это только с покупок |
|
|
|
So, why is the number 21 million significant? Is it some kind of religious belief?
Principles can exist without religion, y'know. Arguably, they flourish without it. Balls to religion. I'd rather see people being capable of judging right from wrong without needing to be bribed with the promise of heaven or threatened with the prospect of hell. If someone requires such an incentive to be a good person, they're probably just a bad person masquerading as a good one. Besides which, obsessions with superstition and fables is unproductive when discussing technology. Maybe leave that crap out of it? If you use Bitcoin, you accept the fundamentals of its design. In the same way an upstanding person wouldn't renege on a deal, they equally wouldn't wish to breach the principles that Bitcoin was founded upon. Changing it would effectively be pulling the rug out from under everyone who already accepted it as it is. It's not fair to move the goalposts like that. Your words reflect a wealth of life experience, and I completely agree with you. However, what if principles matter not only those embedded in the Bitcoin code but also the principles guiding Bitcoin investment? What if the optimal bet of 2.625 is genuinely based on sound reasoning and has no connection to religion? Let's take, for example, the relationships between men and women. If in your religion and your state, it is accepted that a man can have only one wife, then whether you are Jeff Bezos or a McDonald's worker, you can't violate this rule. You can't claim that having two wives is better than one, or having three wives is better than two. These are the principles on which your society is based. Because mathematically having one wife when the distribution of men and women is 50/50 is considered an optimal strategy in this game. |
|
|
|
This days lot of bitcoiners are scared of introducing bitcoin to people because of they do not want to be blame if the investment ends bad. Most people have lost good relationships with family and friends all because of introduction to financial investment with no profit and this made them to take a serious decision never to make any introduction about money to anybody again. As for me I'll always introduce bitcoin to people because it is money, people needs money for better life. It is my duty to tell about bitcoin to people and it is their decision to invest in it.
Because of the risk that is in bitcoin it won't stop me from telling people about bitcoin which will better their life if they found it interesting.
Yes, many people have lost friends and even their own families, but not because they got involved with the idea of Bitcoin. It's often due to their greed and inability to assess risk properly. If they had limited themselves in this game with a optimal bet of 2.625 Bitcoin and advised their friends and acquaintances to do the same, then 98% of them wouldn't have lost their friends and family. Think about it next time you talk to your friends about Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
<cut>
I also want to point out that Satoshi did not choose a round number either for the maximum supply of Bitcoin, opting for 21 million.
No, that's incorrect. Satoshi never opted for the round number of 21 million, not for the reason you think, but from a purely mathematical model used for the distribution of new coins through block rewards. The maximum number of coins in the Bitcoin network is determined by two factors: the occurrence of halving every 210,000 blocks and the initial mining reward set at 50 BTC per block. Approximately 120 years from now (after the 33rd halving), when the mining reward reaches 1 satoshi per block, the max coin supply will be 20,999,999.9769 BTC (I am not taking into account coins that are provably unspendable and therefore can never reach the max supply). As a result, the network will never actually reach the total supply of 21 million BTC. Try. It's free. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/consensus/amount.hSatoshi could have chosen any coefficients for this logistic function. But why did he choose precisely 21000000? Roughly speaking, the essence of halvings lies in a very rough approximation of this function. The approximation could have been performed with a much smaller interval than 4 years while still achieving the same maximum supply. This leads to your second question. Why did Satoshi choose a halving interval of 4 years? The generalised logistic function or Richards' curve (1959) was developed for growth modelling (extension of logistic). The model has been modified by Sugden (1981) and Satoshi (2008)
Wt[t]=W(1-(1-m)Exp[-k(t-T)/(m^(m/(1 - m)))])^(1/(1- m))
W=21000000
k=0.002625
m=0.3909
T=165.6
|
|
|
|
Aren't they already? So there is no need for Bitcoin to have a status like that ( the one you're saying ) but if that happens then many Bitcoin users are going to be happy about that. Bitcoin's adoption is already wide but it's still possible for it to become even wider. What is only unlikely is if it will replace the current global financial system. So many banks and financial institutions are against it, so they won't let that happen.
Maybe Peter and Paul played a big role in spreading Christianity but before it, I think we have Moses. I like Moses better to be the equivalent of Michael Saylor because like Moses who help the slaves, Saylor also help the people against the modern-day slavery through Bitcoin.
If Michael Saylor invited me today for a 40-year-long walk through the Sinai Desert, I would agree to it, even though I am no longer young. Only 2% of people older than 26.25 years are capable of changing their worldview. The remaining 98% of individuals, raised on Marvel, DC, and parental guidance to keep the American dollar in banks or under the mattress, belong to the Liquidated Generation. Hence, in order for the last slave of the fiat system and the American dollar to die, Bitcoin plebs simply need such a 40-year-long journey. And are you ready to sustain yourself solely on heavenly manna for 40 years for the future of finance? |
|
|
|
These individuals, who have gone through natural selection and acquired 2.625 Bitcoins on the market, could unite, for example, in a religious Order, and gain the chance to change the world order. This trend is already emerging today. I can see that you are either overthinking or overimagining the whole thing about Bitcoin, which is not really good because your idea is not what will happen. I was even shocked to see that you are concluding that your imagination is already taking place. How do you believe or think that only a few people can hold down Bitcoin because of some kind of religious belief? First, you should ask yourself if the whole world is practising one religion, or perhaps do you only suggest that it's just a few individuals that are in the same religion that will accumulate all the Bitcoin? It's never been possible, and it's not becoming possible any day. Allow me to answer your question with a question. Strictly speaking, Bitcoin can be "printed" by changing just one line of its source code. And if 51% of miners reach a consensus around this version of Bitcoin, we could indeed increase the maximum supply to 30 million or 50 million. So, why is the number 21 million significant? Is it some kind of religious belief? /** The amount of satoshis in one BTC. */
static constexpr CAmount COIN = 100000000;
/** No amount larger than this (in satoshi) is valid.
*
* Note that this constant is *not* the total money supply, which in Bitcoin
* currently happens to be less than 21,000,000 BTC for various reasons, but
* rather a sanity check. As this sanity check is used by consensus-critical
* validation code, the exact value of the MAX_MONEY constant is consensus
* critical; in unusual circumstances like a(nother) overflow bug that allowed
* for the creation of coins out of thin air modification could lead to a fork.
* */
static constexpr CAmount MAX_MONEY = 21000000 * COIN;
|
|
|
|
It's kinda pointless question, we don't know why he chose 2 instead of 1 or 3. But he did the right thing, investing in his kids future, that's for sure.
Let's assume you are not limited in resources. How much would you buy for your children? I would buy 2.625 bitcoins for each of them. How about you? Why 2.6? Is this number important to you somehow? If you aren't limited in resources, you should buy unlimited amount of bitcoin, right? Bitcoin cannot be printed like fiat money and it doesn't succumb to inflation. If we take these two aspects into account, we come to a conclusion that bitcoin is superior to fiat when it comes to saving money and possessing inherent value. Having unlimited amount of fiat money means you can spend it all to buy a limited amount of bitcoin, but that limit is only in the amount of bitcoin available for sale. Good question. Strictly speaking, Bitcoin can be "printed" by changing just one line of its source code. And if 51% of miners reach a consensus around this version of Bitcoin, we could indeed increase the maximum supply to 30 million or 50 million. So, why is the number 21 million significant? Is it your religion? Thus, if my resources were unlimited, my optimal bet in this game would be 0 (zero) Bitcoin. I wouldn't buy any Satoshi. Instead, I would simply purchase 51%+ of the mining power and increase the supply of Bitcoins in circulation by changing source code. This way, I could make you sell all your bitcoins for penny, and then I could easily decrease the supply again to say 21 million. This is called a strategy. Basic C++, kids /** The amount of satoshis in one BTC. */
static constexpr CAmount COIN = 100000000;
/** No amount larger than this (in satoshi) is valid.
*
* Note that this constant is *not* the total money supply, which in Bitcoin
* currently happens to be less than 30,000,000 BTC for various reasons, but
* rather a sanity check. As this sanity check is used by consensus-critical
* validation code, the exact value of the MAX_MONEY constant is consensus
* critical; in unusual circumstances like a(nother) overflow bug that allowed
* for the creation of coins out of thin air modification could lead to a fork.
* */
static constexpr CAmount MAX_MONEY = 30000000 * COIN;
But since my resources are limited, my strategy is to hold 2.625 bitcoins and never sell them. Basic game theory, kids. |
|
|
|
It's kinda pointless question, we don't know why he chose 2 instead of 1 or 3. But he did the right thing, investing in his kids future, that's for sure.
Let's assume you are not limited in resources. How much would you buy for your children? I would buy 2.625 bitcoins for each of them. How about you? If we assume that you are not limited by resources, then why would you decide to buy only 2,625 bitcoins? Why not round up a number, like 3 BTC, or 5 BTC? Why not 3.3333 bitcoins? It's a round-ish number. Most people like round numbers 2, 5, 10. 2 is too small bet, 3 or 5 is too big bet. Therefore, my mathematical model shows that the optimal bet in this game is 2.625 for each player. I also want to point out that Satoshi did not choose a round number either for the maximum supply of Bitcoin, opting for 21 million. |
|
|
|
The optimal bet would be to buy 2.625 bitcoins. However, a bet of 2 bitcoins is not bad either. Why do you think Robert Kennedy Jr. bought each child exactly 2 bitcoins, not 1 or 3?
He wanted to be fair with both, that’s why he distributed 4 Bitcoins 2 for each. Why he bought 4 Bitcoins? Maybe he was only afford to buy 4 or just want to spend that much amount only. But this shows that he knows the potential of Bitcoin and as his inherited property he wanted to give his sons Bitcoins as a property. Regarding 2.625, I don’t know why you have stated this exact figure here. Maybe I missed some news outside. Hope you got some clear picture regarding the division of the coins. It is interesting to know in the sense that it helps understand how wealthy individuals and politicians think and what size of bets they might make in Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
