|
A bitcoin is more like an ounce of gold, and neither are like a share of a company. The major difference is that a company generates value by doing something productive. An asset such as a bitcoin does nothing productive and it cannot generate value. They are very different because the math is different.
BTW, this demonstrates the difference between an investor and a speculator. An investor buys an asset because it will increase in value as a result of doing productive work. A speculator buys an asset because it will increase in value as a result of changes in supply and demand. There are no Bitcoin investors; there are only Bitcoin speculators.
|
|
|
|
|
A swap would require a central authority to manage and enforce it. Does Bitcoin have a central authority? I hope not. Anyway, there are lots of other reasons why your idea will not (and should not) happen.
|
|
|
|
|
That is not a Casascius coin.
|
|
|
|
N. N. Taleb has made several important contributions. He is also known for the concept of antifragility, which is an important characteristic of a decentralized system -- such as Bitcoin. I invite everyone to explore some of these ideas, perhaps along the lines of the Martin Armstrong thread.
Another idea is that Black Swan events cannot be predicted by analyzing the past. People have a tough time with that one. |
|
|
|
|
That article is clickbait. It is a waste of time. It is full of confusion. It seems to be about some speculation on Reddit about movement of bitcoins that may be related to Silk Road, or perhaps Mt. Gox, or perhaps Craig Wright. The article shows a bunch of unrelated addresses and transactions along with some random posts and then talks about how they are all related, or not.
|
|
|
|
|
It is a common misconception that making mining more efficient will lower the overall usage of electricity. The truth is that overall electricity usage is determined by the value of the block reward primarily, and making mining more efficient will only result in a higher hash rate.
|
|
|
|
The spike in hash rate this past week has been rapid, from 45 Exahash/s to 62 Exahash/s. This is perhaps indicative of a mining supersite being switched on. A past article on Bitcoin News discussed how mining supersites were being developed for USD 0.5-1 billion by big mining companies like Bitmain, and these supersites would cause an extreme spike in mining hash rate and difficulty that could make small mining operations unprofitable and obsolete. Indeed, mining difficulty is higher than ever at 6.7 trillion, and next time it updates it should be well above 7 trillion. The era of personal Bitcoin mining could be coming to an end quite soon.
Keep in mind that there is no way to know the actual hash rate. The reported hash rate is just an estimate based on the average times between blocks. Since the times are completely random, the reported hash rate will vary quite a bit even when the actual hash rate is constant. Since short term changes in the reported hash rate are random, it is not reasonable to attribute short term changes to any specific events. |
|
|
|
|
Electricity is not a finite resource, so it doesn't matter whether Bitcoin mining is 1% or 10% or even 99% of the total consumption.
The real issue is the effect of power generation on the environment, and at only 1%, Bitcoin cannot be considered to be a significant contributor to that problem. Furthermore, there are better ways to address the environmental problems than to prohibit certain types of consumption.
|
|
|
|
|
If you are here only to earn money from your signature, then you will probably never rise above Jr. Member, so it is not going to matter how much the other ranks earn.
|
|
|
|
I think you might get better answers if you post your question on an EOS forum, such as https://eosforum.org/ |
|
|
|
It looks to me like the answer is #1.
bool CheckProofOfWork(uint256 hash, unsigned int nBits, const Consensus::Params& params)
{
bool fNegative;
bool fOverflow;
arith_uint256 bnTarget;
bnTarget.SetCompact(nBits, &fNegative, &fOverflow);
// Check range
if (fNegative || bnTarget == 0 || fOverflow || bnTarget > UintToArith256(params.powLimit))
return false;
// Check proof of work matches claimed amount
if (UintToArith256(hash) > bnTarget)
return false;
return true;
}
|
|
|
|
... All the 2nd layer technology stuff like the lightning Network is only going to reduce fees drastically. ...
LN is not a perfect substitute for on-chain, so not all transactions will be done through LN. Furthermore, increased adoption of Lightning Network will result in more on-chain transactions even if most transactions are off-chain because of the need to open and close channels. For example, if 10% of the world uses LN and opens/closes a channel once per year, that alone will generate 44 TPS, requiring (very roughly) 6 MB per block. ... Which means we will need even more transactions to pay as the block reward diminishes. ...
Again, the need for fees is determined entirely by the need for security (against a 51% attack). It is possible that the block reward will be more than enough to provide sufficient security even without a subsidy, but there is a real danger that it won't. The issue is that security is not a major component in the price of a transaction. The primary factor is the size/weight, which is not related to its need for security. There needs to be a way to tie security to price. Some ways to increase the price of security might be to somehow make more valuable transactions bigger so that they cost more, or perhaps to include the value of transactions in determining the "longest" chain. |
|
|
|
We all know that BTC's and altcoins price depends on the market capitalization. What you really think about where is that amount of money - 600 billion, as we know in December were 800 billion, right now is 200. What happened, and do we really can achieve that number?
Suppose you are Usain Bolt and you just set a new record in 2009 for 100 meters in 9.58 seconds, but in 2013 your time is 9.77 seconds. Where is the 0.19 seconds? |
|
|
|
|
"Why Some Bulls Expect Bitcoin to Fall ..."
Clickbait. The article never actually tells why.
|
|
|
|
|
It don't agree with the author's definition of "real". Most of the uses that are listed are proofs-of-concept at best.
|
|
|
|
|
TLDR; You cannot assume that the value of the block reward in the future must be the same as it is today. You cannot assume that the maximum transaction rate depends directly on the maximum block size.
The security of the network depends directly on the value of the block reward. As such you must determine a minimum value of the block reward that will provide the minimum viable level of security. I don't know how to determine that value, but I'm sure that some smart person can figure it out. It depends on the value of the transactions, the maximum size of a block and the price of including a transaction in a block. I believe that the current value of the block reward exceeds the minimum necessary value by a large factor, so a large drop in the network hash rate going forward would have little impact on security.
It is possible to use Bitcoin without including every transaction in the blockchain. Already, a large portion of Bitcoin transfers are transacted off-chain through private channels provided by companies such as Coinbase and BitPay. In the future, the Lightning Network will provide another way to transact without going directly to the block chain, and other methods will probably be developed in the future. I don't think it would be crazy to predict that less than 1% of all bitcoin transfers will be done on-chain in the future.
|
|
|
|
well you think it was the real account of satoshi nakamoto? well yes it was labeled as founder but maybe we need more proof because we all know that satoshi nakamoto is anonymous and anyone can impersonate the name
It is good to be skeptical, but in this case "satoshi" is user #3 ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3). That should be sufficient proof. |
|
|
|
|
It's not free if you have to work for it.
|
|
|
|
For me, any online business that promises up to 20% profit on investment on a monthly basis is probably a scam.
In my experience, any Bitcoin business that promises any return is probably a scam. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
