... hypocrite, self-absorbed grifter musk is back to preach at bitcoiners some more? how surprising

... noone should be buying teslas until Musk can guarantee his "confirmation of ~50% clean energy with positive future trend" standard is achieved for charging and manufacturing Teslas, including the materials mining, e.g. lithium, plastic, aluminum, rubber

Thank you for pointing me to this, it's been a fascinating hour reading this stuff. Finally STEM (Science Translational Medicine journal) is not only cited, but has excellent information that I can somewhat read :-) Merited the hell out of the post.

Will probably spend the rest of the weekend reading this stuff. I remember hearing about the Tau replacement for U, the fact that they used it like this is a great example of how some discoveries that seem kind of pointless years ago turn out to be very handy later....

JPMorgan (Feds's market agent/proxy) said target was 35k ... since then price has targeted and oscillated around 35k as if in frequency response to an unsophisticated 2nd order controller.

... wrap a control loop around any market price using options/futures as your input and unlimited control authority (fiat slush fund impervious to losses) and dial in the set point

... these AI neural net controllers are more sophisticated again, adaptive, large state sets, cross-coupling with external variables add in some kalman filtering, stochastics, dynamic programming etc to the witches brew from the quants

Dozens out of 50,000 doesn't sound like anything newsworthy.

The vaccine provides little to no protection from COVID-19. In fact, it isn't really a vaccine at all. It may even sterilize or kill anyone who has taken it. Nobody really knows since it is experimental and did not go though the normal 5-10 year approval process. Collectively, the human race is putting all of it's faith in big pharma and the corrupt censor-happy media. What could possibly go wrong?
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/vaccines/timeline

The CDC is now running the PCR tests for vaccinated people at a lower number of cycles (28 vs 42) to ensure the reported number of infected people is lower among the vaccinated.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/downloads/Information-for-laboratories-COVID-vaccine-breakthrough-case-investigation.pdf

Look at how the media is pushing the vaccine so hard and not reporting the side effects or deaths from the vaccine. They say they don't want to report on the side effects because it will discourage people from getting the vaccine but shouldn't we make up our own minds with all available information? It is looking like there will be more deaths from the vaccine than COVID by the time this is done.

Come on bitcoiners, we are supposed to be the ones who think for ourselves.

Open your eyes once again and see what is really going on.

ugh this had me watching too long

Don't give these MSM distractors clicks.


https://twitter.com/WhalePanda/status/1403268800687050752

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

I can see the IMF's position on El Salvador and I agree that it is a higher risk for them.

When they announced that, I thought...why don't we just raise $1 billion among Bitcoin folk and loan El Salvador the money to put toward infrastructure to be paid back in the future.

But if Bitcoin is accepted nationwide and widely used...then...good luck getting any more tax dollars from anyone since they'll just be earning untraceable, anonymous currency. Their tax revenue is going to crash and they won't be able to pay anyone anything.

I do like the idea that they are accepting Bitcoin for residency. That could possibly become their main source of revenue and replace all taxation as people want to join their thriving economy.

Bitcoin ends governments and it makes sense that the IMF would not want to invest in a country that will have a much smaller government in the future.

It was my understanding that these hydro-power installations were mostly built in anticipation of needed demand (or arguably misallocated resources - see the ghost cities) and were just being used where they would otherwise be idle rather than built specifically by miners. I could see some idiot bureaucrat making a boneheaded decision in that case.

Shutting down cheap Chinese mines is a good thing. Fewer miners is not a problem as the chain is far more secure then it reasonably should be. Likewise miners paying more to mine will weed out older mining gear thus increasing efficiency. Finally if miners need to pay more for power they are less likely to dump cheap coinz on the market and bitcoin prices go up, which is bullish.

It’s because several Chinese provinces have told miners to cease mining. They are turning off machines & ready to relocate.

The price is moving, people started transacting again and.. the hash rate was falling yesterday by quite a lot.

avalon had the 1st ASIC miner.

bfl did eventually deliver their asics, very very late and seemingly delivered mainly by carrier pigeons. i have one of their FPGAs and a couple SC series.


made out on the FPGA, not so much on the ASICs.

Did they actually ever get that out? I know their FPGA made it but I remember all sorts of drama with fake demos and some fuss with Inaba when it came to the ASIC.

Well that of course is a reaction to the massive shilling of shitcoins and it morphed into any talk of any other project being a bag shilling exercise so was dogpiled without mercy.

AFA I remember it was considered alts were a good testing ground for fleshing out ideas that might be incorporated into the base layer but due to the sheer quantity of garbage scamming fucktards the instant knee jerk was to dogpile anyone even alluding to the fact something besides Kling Daddy had any value. and of course then the Ethtard started with the dominance shilling crap and it just polarized the entire scene with the ethtards being the nothing but NGU scam shilling dominated lowlives with zero consideration for the vision Bitcoin provides.

/rant off


Well since it is a m00t point now the knee jerk reactions to the subject seem to have calmed down to the no dogpiling point and we actually had some good discussions with the bear on the subject.

But we did have to restrict him to discuss it only on  Wednesdays (crazy I always spell Wednesdays wrong and have to google it as the spell checker can't get it right either!).

IIRC LTC was in responce to asic adoption as scrypt was thought to be asic resistant. but apparently they gave up on that fight and became another shit coin (still good to move funds between exchanges though: only real world usecase I know of). But there are still those that fight for decentralization, its just a harder battle than NGU peops are willing to fight.

Namecoin got a death blow when there was a bug that allowed total takeover of the domain by a simple hack. I think it was fixed but I really didn't follow what has become since then. I think their uphill battle would have been to have ICANN acceptance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ckMG9mAd7s

What is he really talking about? And what real problems? Problems with bitcoin or problems in the real world. If he mean problems in the real world I would agree. Now for the matter of fact if not all then surely every other project starts with a problem in bitcoin and tries to solve it with their on token or coin that's a logical fallacy.

To be honest haven't seen a single project which solely aiming to solve any real world problem. I remember in 2017/2018 there was one project WPR or WePower which claimed to be green energy based solution. To be honest I thought they will be building windmills or other green energy sources for public use not to run their own so called "trading platform". I'm not even sure where they stand today.

Anyway solving a real-world problem and claiming to solve it are two different things. Until now we haven't seen any single such claim going through yet.

I am among those who thinks reasonable blocksize increases would be a good thing.  I actually pointed out in the taproot activation thread here that the unsung best part of that being done well is it proves that Bitcoin can govern itself better than many had feared after the 2017 fight.  And I even mentioned that this (though a much more popular change) gave me hope that some day we could revisit block size increases as well.

As to nodes on RPis etc.  I agree it is a silly arbitrary measure to make that what we should be able to run a node on, although I do run a Pi 4, which it must be said is not a terribly under powered SBC, and is a requirement if you want to run a node, as anything below that cannot validate the chain fast enough to be useful.

But you bring up cell phone processors.  I think in some ways that is a more important measure.  Things like SPV, and neutrino are important ways to bring trust minimized validation to handheld computers, and i think in those regards we are going the right direction.

I think all the Luke Dashjr type "BLOCKS NEED TO BE SMALLER" arguments are misguided and do us harm.  I think Luke is a trainwreck as a person who takes a very extreme view on EVERYTHING.  The current Pope is an antichrist, the blocks are too big, we need to wear gas masks to keep from getting covid etc.  That combined with the dick measuring contest that the dark side of BTC Maxi culture brings us, and the small block ethos gets more attention than I think it needs.

I wish we had Hal with us still.  I feel like he would have some really good stuff to say about all this.  In fact I would trust him more than Satoshi himself, who I do not think quite had the long view or wisdom of the former.  Maybe it's better they are both currently silent (here's to cryogenics? )

I do think validation is perhaps more important than you do.  I do not want to trust that job to a small number of servers.  But I think we could raise the bar quite a bit before we get into trouble there.  I just want to make sure we avoid a "Davos" of Bitcoin forming.  Some place where the powerful nodes all gather and decide one day that it is in the best interest of mankind to mint another 21mm, and for our trouble we will split a simple 1mm amongst ourselves to cover costs, of course.

Every human endeavor has become corrupted that way eventually.  The longer we can keep that from happening to Bitcoin the better.  And I do understand that the big-blockers see small blocks as a bank takeover.  I just don't see that.  Banks don't need small blocks to remain necessary.

Same goes for most of this forum. WO is the only thread I'm here for.

You might have been able to talk yourself into custodial wallets being OK but not everyone agrees. If you don't like being around people you disagree with then yes, you should probably stay out of there.