notbatman,
I am traveling to Antarctica next week. I will be there for several days. Is there any evidence supporting FE that you would like me to gather or are there any experiments that you would like me to run?
Sure, you're going to have a lot of flat, wide open space so if you could bring an 83x or 120x optical super zoom camera and take some photographs. Step #1: Assuming dry and clear weather conditions find a landmark of known distance say in the ballpark of 8 miles, and photograph it from an elevation of 3 feet. Step #2: When you return from Antarctica calculate the distance to the horizon on a sphere with a ~3,958 mile radius at a 3 foot elevation. Step #3: ? Step #4: Profit. Antarctica is anything but flat and that can be done anywhere. I was hoping for a suggestion that is unique to Antarctica. |
|
|
|
|
Without a link to the video, it is difficult to comment, but the graph seems to have an error. The first two increases are the result of the halvings when the flow was instantly halved. The third increase should not be there. The halving has not occurred yet.
As for the correlation between the halvings and the price -- the graph shows that it does not exist. The increase shortly after the first halving seems to imply a relationship, but the other two increases and the second halving show no correlation. Note also that the first major increase that happened in 2011 is not shown and it is not correlated with a halving. Also, there are several less-spectacular (though still significant) increases, none of which can be correlated with a halving.
As for the correlation between price and stock-to-flow -- it is a coincidence. Any two graphs with exponential increases can appear to be correlated. Bitcoin's stock-to-flow graph is exponential, and coincidentally, Bitcoin's price has also risen exponentially, so their graphs can be made to appear to match. Other graphs that appear to be correlated with Bitcoin's stock-to-flow are the rise in CPU processing power and sales of cell phones.
|
|
|
|
When the chain forks, let suppose that the network followed the stronger chain. If some transaction in the stale block is not duplicated in the chain is it reversed?
If the fork extend to some number of blocks, is not clear to me if is possible (and if is easy) a node verify transactions considering two chains, so it make sense to revert transactions from stale blocks.
... Now say the chain fork at 5 and the old 5-6-7 were overwritten. 1-2-3-4- 5-6-7What happens is this, if your node is up that you sent your transaction out on, it will see the fork and try an resend the transaction so instead of your transaction being included in block 7, it will be included in a later block. In the new chain your transaction would be in block 8 or later. (depending on when you brought your wallet online) 1-2-3-4- 5-6-7- 8Now say you had your wallet offline and knowing about the fork, decided you wanted to doublespend. What you would do is keep your current wallet offline, export your private keys, create a new wallet & import your private keys into it. Delete your old wallet. (Even easier just restore the wallet from a backup before you send out the coins on the original fork.)Now you can bring your new wallet online, which won't resend your old transaction. This transfers your balance but excludes the transactions, so that the transaction is not resend and you double spend. ... That is not quite correct. When the chain is re-orged, then all transactions in the stale blocks that aren't already in the new chain are returned to the mempool. The result is ultimately the same, but it is not necessary for the wallet to resubmit the transaction. The double-spend happens when a transaction in the new chain invalidates a transaction that was previously confirmed in the stale branch, and the already confirmed transaction is rejected. In order to do that successfully, that attacker must be able to add blocks more quickly than the rest of the network so that they can force a re-org with a branch containing the double-spending transaction. Such an attack requires more than 50% of the total hash rate, and that is why it is called a 51% attack. |
|
|
|
|
notbatman,
I am traveling to Antarctica next week. I will be there for several days. Is there any evidence supporting FE that you would like me to gather or are there any experiments that you would like me to run?
|
|
|
|
Truman-style square earth with hidden 4th wall continent:
...
FYI this is completely theoretical of course. However, there's no practical reason for ships or planes to travel through that area so who knows what's really there. I'm just going to assume for amusements sake that it's the lost continent of Atlantis and it's got a lot of snakes.
There is not likely to be a continent there. Your area includes many charted islands including the Hawaiian Islands, Cook Islands, Pitcairn Islands, and French Polynesia. |
|
|
|
There is no relationship between Bitcoin and the value of the financial sector, economic output or worldwide debt. You can compare the value of Bitcoin to the value of anything, but that doesn't mean that they will some day be equal.
The most appropriate comparison is to something that Bitcoin can replace, such as base money, which is about $19 trillion. Only then can you get a realistic target.
Hmm. I would beg to differ on this thanks mostly in part to a very famous post by the late Mr Hal Finney, From the quote below it seems that it may have been a possibility that things like debt, wealth and other factors were indeed looked at at some time. ... Then the total value of the currency should be equal to the total value of all the wealth in the world. ...
He is mistaken. The total value of all the currencies in the world does not currently equal the total value of all of the wealth in the world, and there is no reason why Bitcoin would change that. |
|
|
|
i do listen. but your point is that all you want to look at is the market price. and all you scenario out is the hobby miners that get emotional.
...
as it has been shown, you have totally not even considered the industrial mining which is the majority of mining, nor their costs, nor their long term contracts meaning they cant stop even if the tried
they have to plan and prep expansion or reduction months ahead, not based on a daily, hourly whim of emotion
so here is another point
hobby miners pay electric as its used. so switching off saves them money
industrial miners buy allotments of electric requirement per month/year to get good discount
EG
XGW for january 2020-january2021
and pay upfront. (good discount that way)
meaning if they turned off their asics. they are not saving money. infact its costing them more money to stop. because they already paid it and need to recoup costs by mining.
industrial mining is not the same as hobby mining
but you have to understand the things behind the scenes.
oh and same goes for gold.
if a gold miner is paying $1m to lease land to mine on. and $X00k for the excavators and sluice machines, and $x0k for the water permits for the year... guess what. not mining the land does not save them any funds
go watch tv shows like 'gold rush' .. when they stop for a few hours for maintenance, they are not cheering that they are saving money. they are trying to get back up and running as fast as possible because each hour is costing them money
and yes they prebuy fuel in fuel trucks already delivered at the location so its not even saving them fuel. as they already bought it.(same as bitcoin mining already buying electric)
but hey if you wanna stick with just the emotions of the market price and having no clue where real value is, you carry on
I never claimed that miners turn their equipment on or off based on daily fluctuations in the price. Obviously, miners with long term contracts will keep mining when the price drops in order to reduce their losses, but not after the contracts have expired (and not if the variable costs are more than the revenue). In the end, price is a factor in whether a miner continues mining or not, maybe not in the short term, but certainly in the long term. Gold miners and cucumber farmers face those same issues, but unlike Bitcoin, choosing to mine/farm or not affects overall production. |
|
|
|
Hello BTC Devs,
Just wanted to know how much difference it makes between "BASE58 (P2SH) & BECH32 (P2WPKH)"
security wise as well as anonymity wise does BECH32 (P2WPKH) really sound than BASE58 (P2SH) ?
Base-58 and bech32 are two encoding schemes. P2WPKH and P2SH are two kinds of transactions. |
|
|
|
And I do know the difference between price and value: they measure the same thing,
ok well you continue on your one view and ill continue on my multiple angled view ... I'm not going to address your cucumber analogy because it is all just a bunch of statements with no point. I believe you are trying to make a point there, but you never get around to it. Your problem is that you believe that you are smart and everyone else is stupid. So, you rant and you rave and you don't care what anyone else thinks. You don't listen because you don't care. |
|
|
|
Gold is different. If the price drops then production drops. If the price rises, then production rises. Bitcoin production is the same regardless of the price.
production doesnt stop. bitcoin mining farms and gold mining quarrys have long term contracts gold has land leases and year contracts of employment bitcoin has facility leases and electric supply contracts ... Nothing you wrote addresses the fact that gold is different because if the price drops then production drops and if the price rises, then production rises, whereas Bitcoin production is the same regardless of the price. And I do know the difference between price and value: they measure the same thing, but value is subjective and price is objective. |
|
|
|
you could argue gold has same things.
and just pretend the cost to mine gold has no power over the market. and the rest is just speculation of utility and desire.
but thats just downplaying the cost of production..
sorry but i have been looking at different markets for years and there is a fundamental value line based on the acquisition costs.
...
Gold is different. If the price drops then production drops. If the price rises, then production rises. Bitcoin production is the same regardless of the price. |
|
|
|
|
Keep in mind that the timestamp is 2009-01-03 10:15, but that doesn't mean that the block was actually mined on January 3. It could have taken many days to mine the genesis block, and that may be why the release was delayed.
Also, there is minimum difficulty of 1. It took miners nearly a year to increase their hash rates high enough for the difficulty to start increasing. The average time between blocks was much longer than 10 minutes during that time.
|
|
|
|
When Satoshi mined the genesis block, he cranked up the difficulty to a level that would have taken a top of the range CPU just over 4 days to solve. Satoshi mined the block in just over 4 minutes, meaning he either lucked out or had access to some super-powerful technology.
Nothing in that quote is known to be true. |
|
|
|
Let's assume that some exchanges are not honest and they not only inflate their volume, but they actually sell what they don't have. ...
Keep in mind that exchanges don't buy or sell bitcoins. They simply create a market where others can trade. However, they hold bitcoins, and that is where the typical problems can arise. However, it is possible for an exchange to also secretly trade with bitcoins or fiat that it does not have because the exchange controls the accounting. Whether or not that becomes a problem for the exchange depends what happens to the price. If the price rises after you sell bitcoins you don't own or it falls after you buy bitcoins with fiat you don't own, then you can lose a lot of money. If the price moves enough, it will cause the exchange to fail when there is no longer enough fiat or bitcoins to support normal operations. |
|
|
|
It is not clear that Bitcoin has "strong fundamentals" and there is no evidence that the price is "constantly being weakened by manipulation".
Bitcoin has now evolved in a living commercial entity. Most people restrict their view of Bitcoin fundamentals to things like mining costs, but the really important consideration is the ecosystem that is being built around it. It is this that needs to be evaluated to assess fundamentals in my opinion. I agree that the ecosystem is the source of the fundamentals, which is what makes them so hard to quantify. Note that mining cost is not a fundamental since it does not affect the price, but instead is affected by the price. We know that there is massive whale and other manipulation of the Bitcoin price, and this is widely reported in the mass media. This will frighten off many retail buyers, and this can weaken the price.
We don't know that, regardless of what you might have read. It is all speculation, and the reports you are reading are click-bait based on that speculation. On the other hand, I would not be surprised if there have been attempts at manipulation, but I doubt that it is as systemic as you imply. |
|
|
|
To everyone "bashing me" no, it's not your time to troll people on the internet, and I do have evidence. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. This is at least -part- of what wash trading is and it isn't just "silly" or "negligible."
These buys are made by someone trying to get attention. Someone is screwing with people's lives here and I'm taking this to court if the case flies.
...
I'm on your side, but ... 1. Price charts are not sufficient evidence of wrongdoing. They aren't even sufficient evidence of manipulation. 2. The existence of a price wall is not evidence of spoofing. 3. A spike in the price is not evidence of pump-and-dump. 4. You plan to sue Binance for the actions of others? I don't think that will be successful. I would also like to note that contrary to what some people are saying, you can sue someone and be compensated for damages even if their actions are legal. |
|
|
|
The reverse seems to be true of Bitcoin. This seems to have strong fundamentals, but the price is constantly being weakened by manipulation.
It is not clear that Bitcoin has "strong fundamentals" and there is no evidence that the price is "constantly being weakened by manipulation". Maybe the problem you have is the result of your assumptions. I feel that, except for the supply schedule, Bitcoin's fundamentals are nearly impossible to quantify, making them difficult to analyze. The most I can determine from th fundamentals is that thre is a good chance that the price will be much higher in the future, though it is far from certain. |
|
|
|
|
Honestly, I think you are wasting your time and money. Without any real evidence supporting your claims, I don't think you can win.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
