Actually it is not like "You don't have another choice.". Yes, it is always much better to buy from the dip price. But it is not easy to know what the dip is also.
It will be easier, and you would become less fearful if you zoom out. The “crash” from $64,000 to $29,000 would merely be a correction in Bitcoin’s path to 6 digits from that perspective.
For example, Bitcoin price was $29k not a long time ago. And many people were thinking that this fall would continue until even a level between $10k and $20k. But it wasn't the case. It was the dip and people who bought then are really lucky now.
The “many people” didn’t zoom out, and they might have never considered Bitcoin as a multi-generational protocol. Bitcoin has NOT reached the moon in my opinion. |
|
|
|
US Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell once stated that Bitcoin is a "speculative store of value" and Bitcoin investors are speculating on it as a store of value.
This is not to say that Bitcoin cannot play the role of a safe haven, but Bitcoin may not be a real safe-haven asset at this stage. Then is Gold a “speculative Store of Value” as well? Don’t listen to the opinions of people with ideas that are anti-Bitcoin. Plus Bitcoin is a safe haven in that it’s a back up/fall back in case your a government loses control of the monetary system, OR your government threatens to claim your assets. |
|
|
|
I believe that we should give it 2 more days of red daily candles before everyone starts asking if the recent surge is just a “bull trap”, and other posts again will say that it’s a bear market. Plus witness those trolls who went silent during the surge to re-emerge, then bump their FUD topics.  Not sure about what you are talking about. If you are referring to daily candles, then we have 4 daily green candles and 1 daily red candle. So far, and if you zoom out, we had 10 daily greens, then 4 daily reds, 4 daily greens, and 1 red, so far. We are in the midst of a second daily red candle.. but our current daily candle is not even half way done yet. It opened at $43,836, and the current price is bouncing right around $400 below the opening pricel Read the post again. I’m not talking about what happened “so far”, I’m talking about giving it 2 more days of red daily candles before the trolls re-emerge, and the bears mistake their winter for spring.
To me the current BTC price action seems hardly anything of significance, thus hardly any significance should be implied to be coming from what anyone might say, in terms of short-term BTC price movement that still seems to be quite a bit at the top of a tentative price range that still seems to be pushing UPpity.. at least so far.
By the way, I will concede that our local high of $45,355 (around 25 hours ago) is still NOT quite enough to allow us to have a lot of confidence that the bottom (or $28,600) is "in" for this correction cycle... but surely getting close to a point to be able to raise the confidence that the bottom is in..
Then what price point would give you more confidence that the bottom is in? $50,000? |
|
|
|
I believe that we should give it 2 more days of red daily candles before everyone starts asking if the recent surge is just a “bull trap”, and other posts again will say that it’s a bear market. Plus witness those trolls who went silent during the surge to re-emerge, then bump their FUD topics. |
|
|
|
|
That didn’t answer the question, and the reply is laughable. You are giving everyone a reason to believe that you are just trolling, and which many fellow posters in the forum also give you merits to rank up anyway. Ignored.
|
|
|
|
As I see it, Bitcoin is the product of value aggregation. Bitcoin mining follows the law of conservation of energy, converting the wind, water, and solar energy into electricity, and then into hashing power by mining machine and finally Bitcoin will be dug out. That is a process of storing the energy of nature in the form of Bitcoin. The stored Bitcoin is value. Bitcoin built a value network where value is exchanged and transferred in the form of Bitcoin. This is wrong how does Bitcoin follow the law of conservation of energy? The energy that is used to mine Bitcoin is burned. Proof Of Work means that you are solving complex problems in able to get the reward. To get that reward you are putting in a lot of energy (hashrate) and then once you have solved that problem and got the reward (block reward/fees) that energy then is not converted to anything else but is lost. I stopped reading in this paragraph. I believe that’s a wrong explanation. Energy wasn’t “stored” in Bitcoin because that energy used to mine a block cannot be extacted back and be used. Bitcoin is not like a battery. Nothing was “stored”.
Proof of Work is used to “solve the problem of determining representation in majority decision making”. It’s mentioned in the white paper.
If I had merit I would give you some because the comparison with a battery is perfect. Thank you both for your wonderful answers, and I understand what you mean. Here, let me express my thoughts again. What I want to show is that energy can ultimately be stored in the form of Bitcoin, not just a transfer of physical meaning, but a transfer of ideology. Haha what?
From a physical level, electricity is supplied to the mining machine to work, and then it is directly dissipated in the form of heat. And in terms of ideology. Through the consumption of electricity, the operation of the mining machine is maintained, and the computing power is provided to the mining machine.
And according to the proportion of computing power, the energy of block bitcoin is obtained. Therefore, from this level, by consuming energy, generating computing power, and then generating bitcoin, the final energy is stored in the form of bitcoin. Here, not only a single knowledge of physics, but also some philosophical thinking. Thank you again for your wonderful replies.
Then from that standpoint, because of that “philosophy”, any Proof of Work coin will then always have value “because energy”? Explain why Proof of Stake coins are valued. Value is what the market makes it. If no one buys/uses the coin, it can’t have “value”. Would Bitcoin have value to a man/woman isolated in an island simply because energy was used to “mine” it? |
|
|
|
Upgrades for Bitcoin need to get consensus from miners on the network. The last vote for Taproot to lock in is an example: https://taproot.watch/Miners have to signal their support and help to lock in Taproot. It is a decentralized consensus but satoshi does not call it as DAO. Locked In: Bitcoin’s Taproot Upgrade Gets Its 90% MandateAccording to the parameters set forward by “Speedy Trial,” if at least 90% of the blocks mined in any of the designated two-week difficulty periods “signal” their support for the upgrade, then the activation process can begin. To be more precise: 1,815 out of 2,016 blocks mined within a period have to include a little piece of encoded information that indicates that the miners who mined those blocks are in favor of the upgrade.
I believe that it doesn’t matter what Satoshi calls it, or what he might not call it. Personally, and I believe I’m not alone, I would be OK if someone considered that Bitcoin “could be” the earliest example of a DAO. |
|
|
|
I’m just curious that a sudden pump would cause a change of mind or if it’s irrelevant in your predictions….
Many would reply it would be irrelevant, but what caused some people to make a prediction that Bitcoin will crash further under $25,000? Simply their mood and reaction, depending on the current state of the market.
Should it be relevant or irrelevant ??
The prediction was over a 6 month time frame, so I don’t know….
?
Will you let them change their prediction? Some of them might predict a price that you might want to see. 6 digits. Hahaha. |
|
|
|
As I see it, Bitcoin is the product of value aggregation. Bitcoin mining follows the law of conservation of energy, converting the wind, water, and solar energy into electricity, and then into hashing power by mining machine and finally Bitcoin will be dug out. That is a process of storing the energy of nature in the form of Bitcoin. The stored Bitcoin is value. Bitcoin built a value network where value is exchanged and transferred in the form of Bitcoin. I stopped reading in this paragraph. I believe that’s a wrong explanation. Energy wasn’t “stored” in Bitcoin because that energy used to mine a block cannot be extacted back and be used. Bitcoin is not like a battery. Nothing was “stored”. Proof of Work is used to “solve the problem of determining representation in majority decision making”. It’s mentioned in the white paper. |
|
|
|
51% attack is not happening any time soon for Bitcoin but I see that Faketoshi is having big headache after his fork suffered one more 51% attack, after four happened in month of July. Listen to this now, cost of performing this attack for one hour was only $5,001  Looking at bitinfocharts bsv hashrate chart looks like a slow and painful death to me... I have already posted in BSV ANN that their community should be saying, “THANKS SATOSHI”, after their developers “borrowed” Adam Back’s Bunker Mode Mitigation Scheme. https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/1222461452310720512They replied with memes, and some name-calling. Hahaha. |
|
|
|
Haha. I am the stupid one in the forum, I will never have better ideas to force out of my mind. But I believe I’m smart enough to know that everything that we thought are “good ideas”, they are actually not after 10 years of the Core Developers’ research and work on the protocol. If you are a developer, make a BIP, give all the technical details.
Didn't say any of that, That I’m the stupid one? I said it, and I don’t mind if I am. Believe me. Haha.
I'm just observing that many of those ideas are not being pursued (or maybe it's just the lack of action since 2017). Writing a BIP is something I might consider...
I believe you should do a thorough research of the counter-arguments in why those ideas are “not being pursued” first, before assuming that they were feasible ideas but ignored ideas. Plus how would you define scaling. I’m curious. |
|
|
|
A question for developers. What is a “blockchain developer”? Someone who is a true computer scientist who has majored in computer science and/or applied cryptography, like some of the Core developers, or someone who has studied a Codecademy course and learned solidity?
These days it seems like the definition is same as someone who can create a shittoken so the later definition sometimes is used to defined a "blockchain developer" which is wrong in my opinion. A "blockchain developer" should be someone who is familiar with the blockchain technology not just know how to create a garbage. It doesn't necessarily have to mean someone who is an expert in cryptography but they have to have some basic understanding. Which should return to people who want to be “blockchain developers”. Do they want to study, or self-learn to be like a Core developer? Satoshi did it, I believe he was a self-learned coder, but he might already have been an Applied Cryptography major, or a Mathematics major. Or do they merely want to develop a shittoken? Whatever these newbie-coders choose, they should start their journey by learning about the Open Source movement and the Cypherpunks movement. That might help them choose which path to take. |
|
|
|
You seem to think that miners have all the power in the Bitcoin system. The only power that miners have is the power to choose the order of the transactions in a block. They do not enforce the consensus. The nodes do.
They don't have all the power, but they're responsible for the security of the network. They don't just choose the order of the transactions. Take for example the voting for the taproot activation. If the majority of those miners didn't accept it, do you think that we'd split into forks? I personally think that people will follow wherever is the most power offered. I believe BIP-148/UASF/block size drama showed that it was not up to the miners to decide YES or NO.
By running a Bitcoin node, you are enforcing your own rules, no matter how the miners want to or have implemented. If your node doesn't agree to the new rules, then your node won't follow them because it isn't compliant with your rules.
The nodes make up their own decisions, but each make the same decisions as one another. By running a Bitcoin node, you follow some consensus rules, but you don't vote for the security of the network (which is where the whole system depends on). Thus, you can be part of the Bitcoin network, but not necessarily with an opinion. I believe we all might have misunderstood POW’s main function in Bitcoin? Mining might not be a consensus mechanism, but a Sybil Attack protection mechanism? Plus the protocol incentivizes the miners to do their job. It’s not that they are there to secure the network for the network’s own sake.
Do you agree?
I agree that it helps the network. I don't agree that it helps it significantly. The UASF showed differently, but I respect your opinion. |
|
|
|
But it wouldn’t be that beneficial to the network. The blockchain must be made as redundant as possible for the new generation of Bitcoiners. If you have the hardware, store the whole blockchain.
And how does a full node (which isn't mining) benefit the network? The only way I can think of is if every other node goes offline and someone wants to download the whole chain. Running a full node, it is personally beneficial to me, because I have the ability to validate all my transactions without relying on trusted third-parties. Running an archival node, it would be beneficial to the network to provide the full copy of the blockchain for the process of new nodes’ Initial Block Download. The blockchain must be as redundant as much as possible. Do you agree? It’s your personal choice, if you don’t want to run a full node, OK. If you want to run a full node, OK. But the ability to run one shouldn’t be taken away. But it wouldn’t be that beneficial to the network. The blockchain must be made as redundant as possible for the new generation of Bitcoiners. If you have the hardware, store the whole blockchain.
Archival nodes are needed for bootstrapping and that is about it, pruned nodes can do everything except to serve those pruned block data. It is only important, in the event that we're hitting a point where we are at the risk of losing those data completely. So, IMO the requirement for that can be quite overblown, especially given that we're not in shortage of those. I do believe that the importance of archival nodes is overblown to a huge extent, where we have no shortage of those for now and in the near future. If anything, we should be exploring ways to either preserve the history, or employ some scheme to truncate the size. Then the more copies of it in the network, the better. It’s always better to overshoot the network’s robustness and security than undershoot it. |
|
|
|
That still doesn’t mean that it couldn’t happen. For Bitcoin, currently being a network with over a $trillion in market capitalization, the developers should NEVER risk and give any way for bad actors to exploit and disrupt the system. The network should be FULL PROOF as possible.
Absolutely, we would have to run a series of test to see if it works and if it is safe. If you have a better idea then you're welcome to share it, we are here to talk. Haha. I am the stupid one in the forum, I will never have better ideas to force out of my mind. But I believe I’m smart enough to know that everything that we thought are “good ideas”, they are actually not after 10 years of the Core Developers’ research and work on the protocol. If you are a developer, make a BIP, give all the technical details. |
|
|
|
OP, but what mechanism would you propose to protect the network from the entities that would flood the mempool to increase the fees, and therefore, according to your proposal to maintain 1%, would increase the block size so much that many of the nodes that do not have the hardware and the bandwidth will not have the ability to keep up?
I fail to see what would be the incentive to launch this kind of attack as the attacker can't generate more income or reverse a transaction by increasing the block size limit. That still doesn’t mean that it couldn’t happen. For Bitcoin, currently being a network with over a $trillion in market capitalization, the developers should NEVER risk and give any way for bad actors to exploit and disrupt the system. The network should be FULL PROOF as possible. |
|
|
|
In 2015, it was around 40GB. It is now over 300GB. My computer has a hard drive with 500GB. While I would've been happy to download the block in 2015, it is now too big for me. Yes, I could easily fork out another $100 to buy a new hard drive but this is something I wouldn't have needed a few years ago.
Fair point, but there are 2 alternative if you insist to run full node 1. Use pruned node. Bitcoin Core still download and verify whole blockchain, but only keep few thousand last block. But it wouldn’t be that beneficial to the network. The blockchain must be made as redundant as possible for the new generation of Bitcoiners. If you have the hardware, store the whole blockchain. 2. Trust third party which prepare pruned snapshot such as https://github.com/ez-org/eznode. There are another alternative such as UTXO commitment, but so far there's no interest to implement it on Bitcoin. ALL users should rather run a pruned node, and validate everything themselves. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin's block chain size is currently around 300GB and increasing. How much of an issue is this in the future? If internet speeds and storage capacity increases at the same pace as Bitcoin's blockchain size, then this is probably not a big deal but what if the increase in the blockchain size outpaces it? What are the implications? Would less people be able to run nodes/mining and therefore threaten decentralisation? Are there any other threats that need to be considered?
This silliness keeps coming out now and then. If you are genuinely interested, why didn't you search a little on the forum? As calculated here, it takes at least 5 years for each 1 TB in the blockchain. And 1 TB of HDD is cheap and gets cheaper by every year passing. Then, you should know that a node needs to download big amount of data only at the first sync, until it's catching up. Afterward the stress on the internet connection is not that big. And internet, again, is evolving to larger bandwidth and cheaper. So... do you see any real problem? Cause I don't. The counter-argument to that is, not everyone has the same access to large bandwidth, or would care to upgrade their internet connection, or their hardware, just to run a node.
Bitcoin's block chain size is currently around 300GB and increasing. How much of an issue is this in the future?
If internet speeds and storage capacity increases at the same pace as Bitcoin's blockchain size, then this is probably not a big deal but what if the increase in the blockchain size outpaces it? What are the implications?
Would less people be able to run nodes/mining and therefore threaten decentralisation? Are there any other threats that need to be considered?
It's always better to overshoot the decentralization/security of the network, than undershoot. The Bitcoin blockchain should also be made as redundant as possible for new nodes. |
|
|
|
|
OP, but what mechanism would you propose to protect the network from the entities that would flood the mempool to increase the fees, and therefore, according to your proposal to maintain 1%, would increase the block size so much that many of the nodes that do not have the hardware and the bandwidth will not have the ability to keep up?
|
|
|
|
One of the arguments against proof of stake is that those with the most stake maintain power over the system (much like our current financial system) and therefore is not "truly" decentralised.
That’s just one of the arguments. There’s also the Nothing at Stake argument, which argues that stakers can sign/vote for forks, that bad actors can also “mine” in secret. This is impossible in Proof of Work, because miners spend actual resources in mining. Hashing without “work” to use as validation is a flawed concept. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
