If those are your only choices, I would pick the one that is least likely to be a scam, as long as you think it is likely to succeed.

Perhaps you could include a "none of the above" vote.

I don't understand what you wrote. I think your understanding and assumptions may be off.

Here is the code in Bitcoin Core that computes a SHA-256 hash: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/crypto/sha256.cpp

Here is the SHA-256 standard:
https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/detail/fips/180/4/final

Here is some documentation on the Bitcoin message protocol:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_documentation

Trump has powers and influence that can affect the economy, and comments by Trump indicate potential future changes to the economy. The state of the economy has an effect on stock prices. Traders respond to those comments in anticipation of future changes to stock prices.

Many banks, especially the big ones, are corporations with publicly traded shares.

As the tweet explains, Trump's comments tend to keep stock prices from rising too high or falling too low.

The prices of bank shares are becoming more stable. The article states that the increased stability makes bank stocks more appealing to more investors.

I stopped selling bitcoins on LocalBitcoins a long time ago because I didn't want to become a martyr.

Miners are already dumping 1800 BTC on the market every day. Nothing changes if you do it instead of other people.


Of course, some people choose to sell only at a profit (despite it being a poor strategy), but there is no reason believe that all or even most miners behave that way. Do you have any information that documents this kind of behavior?


I would be surprised. 1800 BTC are mined each day. That's only 1.2% of the 150k BTC traded each day (which assumes that 95% of the reported volume is fake). Could you point me to information that supports your claim?

Those statements show your lack of understanding about the economics of mining. The cost of growing corn may not be dependent on the price, but mining BTC is different. Unlike corn, the total amount of bitcoin that is mined is fixed at 1800 per day, and that number does not depend on the cost or the difficulty. Corn farmers can spend more to produce more corn, but if miners (as a whole) spend more, they do not increase the production of BTC. They simply increase the difficulty.

I agree that the cost of mining depends on the hash rate, but the hash rate depends on the price. Assuming that a miner is rational, they will increase their hash rate in order to take as much of the total BTC production as they can, but they will not pay more than the price of a bitcoin to mine a bitcoin. Thus, if the cost of mining a bitcoin is less than the price, a miner will increase their hash rate, and if the cost is higher they will stop mining. The overall effect is that if the cost of mining a bitcoin is less than the price, miners will increase their hash rates and raise the difficulty until the cost approaches the price, and if the cost of mining a bitcoin is greater than the price, the least efficient miners will stop mining and lower the difficulty until the cost of mining is below the price. There you have it. The cost of mining depends on the price.

The cost of mining depends on the price. It is not the other way around as you suggest.

It is easy to understand. If the price goes up, miners will spend more to mine the same amount of BTC. If the price goes down, they will spend less. Regardless of how much they spend, they produce the same amount of BTC. The idea that "they will only sell their BTC at a profit" defies reason as they must sell their BTC to pay for their operating costs (whether they sell at a profit or not).



It seems to me that switching to new minering equipment will increase infrastructure costs simply because miners must pay to replace their current equipment. Also, more efficient hardware doesn't lead to lower costs. It leads to higher difficulty as miners increase their hash rates.

In my opinion, if you can't get these right, there is no reason to believe that any of your analysis is correct.

It's myth and mostly wishful thinking. Sure, there were price rises a few months after the halvings, but there have been many price rises at other times, too.

That's a good point. A camera at that height would have no FE atmospheric refraction to prevent it from seeing the edge, and beyond.

Coinbase and blockchain.com are very different. The only thing they have in common is that they both have a browser interface. If you don't know the difference then you don't understand the risks.

The constant repetition of these old misconceptions is tiring.

The "intrinsic" value of a something is not the cost of producing it.

Furthermore, the price of a bitcoin determines the cost of mining it. It is not the other way around. If the price of a bitcoin goes up, the cost of mining it will go up as more miners start mining. If the price of a bitcoin goes down, the cost of mining will go down as fewer miners continue mining.

But it is a fisheye lens. You can easily see the distortion when the balloon first launches. That video contains no proof at all. A person who claims that it shows that the earth is round diminishes their own credibility.

In fact, pictures from balloons are not good proof of flat or round earth. Even if the image is not distorted, the earth is going to look flat (whether it is or not) at 80,000 ft. At 80,0000 ft. with a "normal" perspective (90 degrees from side to side), the horizon of a round earth is going to deviate from a straight line by only about 4%. You aren't going to see that in a video.

The premise of the M&M is that the speed of light would be different in perpendicular directions because the Earth is moving. Because the result showed no movement according to the premise, the M&M experiment is strong empirical evidence that the Earth is stationary. This was explained away by Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, which claimed that the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames of reference. How convenient!

It turns out that one can't just dismiss Einstein's theory because there is plenty of other evidence that confirms that the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames of reference. As a result, the M&M experiment cannot be considered good evidence that the Earth is stationary because the premise (that the speed of light is not constant) is contradicted by strong evidence.

Don't bother. There is nothing worth reading in this article.

Articles about tweets or reddit posts are stupid. This one is about a couple tweets by a so-called "analyst" who makes some claims with absolutely no supporting evidence.

The curvature in that image is clearly due to the lens -- even the closer objects are distorted.

You can't use a simple photograph to show curvature because you don't know how much of that curvature is due to distortion by the lens

There is a mirage. You can see it clearly at the very end of the video when the birds fly by. Though that doesn't explain why the view of the bottom of the boat is blocked by water.

You haven't provided enough details, but it looks to me like you were scammed.

First, it would be helpful to know the name of the exchange.

Second, the statement, "the transaction got into the orphan block. We didn't receive the funds. the funds will be returned to you by the network." doesn't make sense.

Third, it would be helpful to know the transaction id of the transaction in which you sent the BTC to the exchange, or perhaps the receiving address. You can look up the transaction id in a block explorer to see if the exchange received the funds or not.

Ok, so you seem to know the terms better than I, but you also confirmed what I wrote. Neither "fata morgana" nor "superior mirage" explain why the bottoms of distant objects are blocked by the horizon.

Also, your picture of the sunset shows half of the sun being blocked by the horizon. The part of the sun near the horizon appears flattened. That is the result of atmospheric refraction. The little piece below it is a mirage ("fata morgana", I suppose). None of what you wrote explains how half of the sun is blocked by the horizon.

I'm not saying that the earth is round or flat. I'm just saying that atmospheric refraction can't be an explanation of why the bottoms of distant objects are cut off by the horizon (because it has the opposite effect).