recent successful push to $310 indicates next target $493.
Could you explain why? Thx just cause k? It's all in the charts. |
|
|
|
~$300k
please realistic that is priced impossible for bitcoin. too many range we need to go on that price. if we reach 10k that's would be great ... in July 2010 it was 0.30 (30 cents), in July 2015 it is $300 (1000 times in 5 years). With the same exponent of capital appreciation growth it will be $300k in July 2020. |
|
|
|
|
recent successful push to $310 indicates next target $493.
|
|
|
|
... now less than 55,000 blocks until the rate of issuance halving. Any demand on the sidelines waiting for lower prices have a time cost for delaying.
How is that ? Mining difficulty has almost flat-lined now for a few months which indicates bitcoin price is very close to marginal 'average' cost of production. At halving cost of production effectively doubles (same difficulty for half the reward) ... you should be able to do the rest of the math from there. as i posted few month ago, i predict that the cost of production atm is about 120-250 usd (120 if you dont pay electricity), now the difficulty is about maybe 5% higher. at next halfing then cost of production is 150-500. and that would be the price range next year. If bitcoins are selling for $275 and someone is able to generate them for $120 (by your calculations which must include all costs) how can you explain that the difficulty is not increasing then? It doesn't make sense ... if I can generate bitcoins for ~100% I'm going to keep adding rigs, that's simple economics. you miss 120 if you dont pay electricity (just the internet and maintenance) btw its quite difficult to find free electricity these days  yeah and I can produce bitcoins for free if I don't pay for internet and maintenance and electricity ...  |
|
|
|
... now less than 55,000 blocks until the rate of issuance halving. Any demand on the sidelines waiting for lower prices have a time cost for delaying.
How is that ? Mining difficulty has almost flat-lined now for a few months which indicates bitcoin price is very close to marginal 'average' cost of production. At halving cost of production effectively doubles (same difficulty for half the reward) ... you should be able to do the rest of the math from there. as i posted few month ago, i predict that the cost of production atm is about 120-250 usd (120 if you dont pay electricity), now the difficulty is about maybe 5% higher. at next halfing then cost of production is 150-500. and that would be the price range next year. If bitcoins are selling for $275 and someone is able to generate them for $120 (by your calculations which must include all costs) how can you explain that the difficulty is not increasing then? It doesn't make sense ... if I can generate bitcoins for ~100% profit I'm going to keep adding rigs, that's simple economics. |
|
|
|
... now less than 55,000 blocks until the rate of issuance halving. Any demand on the sidelines waiting for lower prices have a time cost for delaying.
How is that ? Mining difficulty has almost flat-lined now for a few months which indicates bitcoin price is very close to marginal 'average' cost of production. At halving cost of production effectively doubles (same difficulty for half the reward) ... you should be able to do the rest of the math from there. |
|
|
|
|
... now less than 55,000 blocks until the rate of issuance halving. Any demand on the sidelines waiting for lower prices have a time cost for delaying.
|
|
|
|
I think this project is amazing as well, and I really enjoy using it as my preferred method for coinjoin txs. However I do have one complaint. The other day I was using the sendpayment.py script. The command was exactly: python sendpayment.py -C -N 4 <wallet> 0 <address> The script put the transaction together, and presented me with the options and a "y/n" prompt. I pressed "y" without paying too much attention and ended up paying some asshole 2.8 BTC to send a little over 5. Which is more than half of the bitcoin controlled by my privkeys.  A couple suggestions: 1. Kick those people from the IRC with 50%+ fees. 2. Present the cjfee in something other than satoshis or have an alert that says you're about to pay an insane amount. Ouch, that sounds like you got the rawhide treatment. |
|
|
|
You never did respond to my question of what capacity you were involved with the HashFast affair? Yet another aching rabbit hole of incompetence, charlatanism, waste and possible fraud there too?
He's paid shill #2. He was in control of the "Hashfast_CL" account. Unlike cypherdoc (who actually convinced many people to give HF money), all Icebreaker was able to do was convince people to go forward with legal action against HF and solidify this communities hatred for the company. You've clearly lost the debate about Frap.doc's coins, so now you're retreating by making me your substitute target. People took legal advice from a random on the internet? Oh, you must mean cedivad and his infamous lawyer. How is that "legal action against HF" working out for you? What debate about frap.docs coins? He's clearly a shill and a liar and possesses 3000btc collected from HashFast customers, those facts are beyond debate. You made yourself a target, I have no idea why you would come here and argue frap.docs innocence when you are obviously sitting on another huge pile of HashFast's coins, how many btw? |
|
|
|
I notice that none of those other proven scammers (that you yourself have just placed frap.doc in the company of incidentally) still inhabit the forum, afaik. So he is either very brazen or just as yet unproven, if he is indeed a scammer. I'm not straining hard, this is all quite easy I can assure you. The mods seem to want to get this off the front page and into meta discussions so I'm happy to oblige with the meta ramifications. Thankfully I was not involved in any way with the ASIC mining boom/bust and are not as intimately aware of the ins and outs and what-have-yous as you seem to be. You never did respond to my question of what capacity you were involved with the HashFast affair? Yet another aching rabbit hole of incompetence, charlatanism, waste and possible fraud there too? cypher.doc has dragged down the whole reputation of bitcointalk.org standing with his shennagins.
What nonsense. Could you possibly strain any harder to exaggerate? Nobody, except for a few lawyers and windfall-obsessed dead-enders, care about an old endorsement thread. Remember when Bargraphics traveled to MO and reported positively on Activemining, which turned out to be a fraud? No? Good, neither does anyone else. And Lord knows how many people endorsed ASICMINER ("Friedcat for President"). Ditto for a dozen other ASIC companies. Not to mention pirate@40, etc. Where is your (apparently highly selective) outrage over them? Don't rush, I'll wait... To make Frap.doc the poster child for BTCT scams is ludicrous, especially as the court has yet to declare his coins anything other than legally earned sales commission, and HF anything other than a victim of changing business conditions. |
|
|
|
So every day less new bitcoins mined? This is nice.
I think it is the same amount every day until every four years, at which point half the previous amount is mined every day for the next four years and then it repeats.... until the year 2141. The process you describe is correct, if you plot it as in OP, it shows an asymptotic convergence on 21 million (20999999.99999999 around the year 2141) when the last satoshi will be mined. It is due to the underlying geometric series, ratio 1/2, 10.5 million * (1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ...) = 10.5M * 2 = 21M, where the 10.5 million comes from the first 210,000 blocks @ 50 btc per block and the ratio two is the halving  Bernoulli spiral. http://www.matematicasvisuales.com/english/html/analysis/seriegeom/seriegeom2.htmlIf by the 2140s we need more satoshis then the significant digits to the right of the decimal place can be extended in the protocol without affecting the 21M btc limit and mining for btc will continue. |
|
|
|
*sigh* The feature that electrum is overwriting the fee all the time is no fun. I wanted to pay someone for an item and entered the fee 0.0002, went back to the value and changed the value a bit and sended... electrum thought it has to change my fee so that i have a transaction stuck now. Its only small but still annoying. I would like when electrum would stop this, it didnt do this in previous versions too.
So how long until i can resend my coins?
This highlights perhaps area where electrum servers could standardise on mempool handling so that electrum clients can determine better fee estimation and TX handling for 'stuck' TX. Electrum client-server model is uniquely positioned to have very slick fee handling with the ability to coordinate policies, that regular SPV and node infrastructure cannot (without sub-optimal 'trusted' node pairing, etc). E.g. I see some good proposals from jgarzik for dropping from the mempool TX that are older than 288 blocks (2 days), using a mempool janitor. And along same lines floating minrelaytxfee dust treatment based around a highwater/lowwater limits on mempool size. |
|
|
|
cypher.doc has dragged down the whole reputation of bitcointalk.org standing with his shennagins. All members of standing are also the injured parties now along with the HF customers who didn't get timely deliveries. Pleading guru status to justify his 3000BTC cha-ching! from hashfast is asinine, not unlike his other arguments in the technical realm where he is clearly out of his depth, yet perseveres with the zeal of a paid shill. He needs to first declare all other pecuniary interests in the bitcoin realm before redeeming any kind of credibility in ANY kind of bitcoin-related debates, given his proven history to covertly shill. Regardless of the particulars surrounding whether he has scammed or not in the HashFast case, which seem like a conveniently convoluted rabbit hole of Byzantine proportions. I do understand the 'common practice of paying sales agents commissions'. I just think that most people who pay or are payed are fucking scumbags most of the time. Nothing I've seen dissuades me from characterizing cypherdoc as such. I've simply not studied Hashfast enough to make a determination one way of another, and have no compelling reason to do so.
IOW, the facts be damned, because they threaten your preferred narrative. I read Fap.doc's OP on his Hashfast pump (and dump?) thread. It's a stone-cold fact that he played off the (mis)conception that he's some sort of a Bitcoin guru to pimp Hashfast junk. I didn't wade through the entire thread but his comments near the end were similar. He's at very best a miserable failure in terms of analysis and dilligence. Probably much worse would be my guess. |
|
|
|
BREAKING NEWS: Deal has been reached with greece, sell everything now.
Are their banks open again? |
|
|
|
The bankruptcy court put HF through the "best effort" test. If they had failed it, the court would have approved the motions to convert from Chapter 11 to 7.
If your plan is to throw random statements and when asked for proof you throw the court thing then you are failing and I don't buy it. Prove that HF built with Uniquify the chip! I dare you! Prove it that it wasn't pretty marketing or dust in the eye, call it whatever you want! Everyone here in consensus reality accepts the fact that Uniquify and HF made a 28nm 400gh/s ASIC called the GN1. My statement wasn't "random." You asked for proof of "best effort" and that proof is given by the fact the court didn't put HF into Chapter 7. Do you really expect me to provide you with some higher order of certainty than legal findings? Metaphysical, perhaps?  Why would you believe me, when you refuse to believe a court that is specialized in making such findings via the adversarial process? How much did Hashfast owe creditors when they were wound up? |
|
|
|
Why is this in Meta and what could it possibly have to do with the operation of the forum?
The OP is asking why his thread was moved to scam accusations. Why was OP's scam accusation moved to the scam accusation sub? Only the thermos knows for sure!  It wasn't actually a scam accusation. I was just raising the discussion about the cypherdoc Hashfast $50M scandal, but as it happened, on the face of the facts, it unfortunately looks like in all probability some kind of scam so it was easy to misinterpret it as a scam accusation be cause it so blatantly looks like a scam. I'll raise another specifically worded discussion topic so as to try not to get shunted into yet another dead alley forum thread by the mods. I mean take a look at all the other topics in meta, which one of them have such specific discussion topics? If the mods keep doing their jobs with such bloody-minded efficiency we may be able to end up running a Hashfast/cypherdoc scandal thread in every sub-topic by the time we are finished discussing all the facts and implications, it's mestastising. I suppose this thread now should be dedicated to meta ideas about how we can clean up bitcoin by ostracizing or otherwise making people aware of the bad actors (scammers, terrible businessmen, or simply unethical endorsers) inhabiting the bitcointalk forum. |
|
|
|
|
Ha, this is good. This time it got moved to "Meta"!! Whoever it is, is quite sure they do not want this discussed on the front page.
The number of people who line up to take a kick is kind of telling.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
