That is fine, I can see very well in this thread, how angry the PoW miner shills get when I try to expose their leeching scheme.
This is absurd, miners aren't making much if any profits. Most miners are taking losses. You would be more honest to suggest that ASIC manufacturers and the clouds they sell, and both green power and dirty power sources are profiting. Who knows what interest the PoW miner shills represent, it might be pools, or ASIC hardware vendors or even electric companies. They are a interest group, representing PoW interests. Miners are definitely part of that group, whether they are making a profit or not is irrelevant. They can be unprofitable, and still sucking value out of Bitcoin, it just means the distribution of profits within the PoW interest group is unbalanced. They are still sucking value out of Bitcoin nonetheless. |
|
|
|
Exposing how much PoW mining sucks is me taking action.
It's about as much action as me responding that you are wrong and that PoW is Bitcoin's best feature. That is fine, I can see very well in this thread, how angry the PoW miner shills get when I try to expose their leeching scheme. |
|
|
|
First end PoW mining, otherwise it might not even survive long enough to "evolve".
You certainly are on a mission, aren't you? Just fork it and let the better protocol win. Why would I do that? I'm a stakeholder of the existing protocol, I am entitled to express my concern regarding the insane PoW expense, which is perpetually sucking value out of my stake in Bitcoin. The change you are proposing (getting rid of PoW) is a hard fork. If the fork occurs, original stakeholders will have both original PoW bitcoins and new whatever-improvement-you-are-suggesting bitcoins. At that point, the market will most likely pick a winner. It's doubtful that both versions will coexist (although not impossible). I know that I will be selling any new bitcoins I get from a fork and buying original PoW bitcoins with the proceeds. So, I personally can't wait for someone to fork the protocol for whatever whims strike their fancy (although I doubt the new forked coins will have much, if any, value). So... express your concerns all you want, but I'd prefer you actually take some action other than posting in every thread about how much PoW sucks. I don't expect that, so I'll see you in the next thread which you hijack on your little crusade. Exposing how much PoW mining sucks is me taking action. If there's a leech on my leg, sucking my blood, I'm going to try to kill it. It's a difficult fight, because the leech (pow mining) have a numbing effect, so most people (bitcoin holders) are not yet aware their blood is being sucked. |
|
|
|
|
It's the PoW mining expense. If without new inflow of capital, Bitcoin will perpetually go lower, due to the PoW mining expense. As we have seen in the past year.
|
|
|
|
pretty sure the core devs all agree, pow is the only proven secure method to achieve distributed consensus.
How could they not? since they are entrenched in the PoW mindset, and is confrontational when even someone mentions PoS. But the reality has PROVEN, that PoS is more secure and more community friendly (due to not having to transfer value out of the eco-system). what proof do you speak of? 1. Many PoW altcoin has been 51% attacked, to the point the Dev just given up fighting back. Zero PoS altcoin has been successfully attacked so far. 2. In the altcoin competition, the PoS eco-systems has naturally risen to the top, on coinmarketcap right now, #4,#6,#7 are PoS, and #10 is a subsidiary of #4. #1 Bitcoin, #3 Litecoin has early mover advantage, #2 Ripple is a scam that is non-PoW and non-PoS. I expect Litecoin will soon lose to a PoS eco-system in less than a year. If Bitcoin keeps PoW, it'll be next, in 3-4 years time probably. This is because PoS re-invest in the community and eco-system, PoW transfers value out of the community and eco-system, into the pockets of hardware vendor/electric company. |
|
|
|
pretty sure the core devs all agree, pow is the only proven secure method to achieve distributed consensus.
How could they not? since they are entrenched in the PoW mindset, and is confrontational when even someone mentions PoS. But the reality has PROVEN, that PoS is more secure and more community friendly (due to not having to transfer value out of the eco-system). |
|
|
|
PoW means fair distribution. In PoS only, you basically have to buy coins someone premined or created with his premined coins. What a joke! Yet some support this idea  Yeah, Satoshi mined 50%+ of the coins in the first year, that's really fair? Most PoS has better distribution in the first year. Also if you really love PoW for distribution, you could use it for distribution, I'm not really against distribution via PoW. It's the PERPETUAL part that annoys me. It annoys you because you dont understand shit. Had bitcoin used POS, Satoshi's stash would be .....what? ah.... i guess you didnt think of that. The inventer of blockchain had to mine to keep it useful for others to contribute. Not like your POS scam, dumbass. Satoshi's stash in a PoS system would depend on how he decides to structure the distribution, just like he could structure the PoW distribution in his favor too, by mining 50%+ of all distribution in the first year (he could have just made the reward very high in the first year too, but he didn't, so there's no reason to think he would have given himself bigger stash in a PoS system). |
|
|
|
First end PoW mining, otherwise it might not even survive long enough to "evolve".
You certainly are on a mission, aren't you? Just fork it and let the better protocol win. Why would I do that? I'm a stakeholder of the existing protocol, I am entitled to express my concern regarding the insane PoW expense, which is perpetually sucking value out of my stake in Bitcoin. like 0.1 btc? Why does POW expense matter? Do you even know Economics? If the money supply is cheap (lol) then so is the value of that money. If the supply rate is too high, then that means the adoption rate (velocity) is too low. Now think about it for a second and see how dump you sound for thinking POW expense matters at all. $500 million per year in PoW expense doesn't matter? it's value transferred out of the Bitcoin eco-system. It's dumb to think PoW expense doesn't matter like i said, you didnt even spend a min to think huh? you dont even know what you want is lowering money supply rate. It has nothing to do with ......POW expense retard. Wow, how dumb can you be? do you think PoW expense magically goes away when money supply is gone? then who's going to secure the Bitcoin network at that point? Like I said PoW is a PERPETUAL expense, that has NOTHING to do with money supply. Stupid fck with POS addiction i see. You must have think POS has no expense..... lol. DUMBtard.... i wonder why your altcoins went down the drain. PoW miner shill still have no real argument other than personal attacks I see. |
|
|
|
PoW means fair distribution. In PoS only, you basically have to buy coins someone premined or created with his premined coins. What a joke! Yet some support this idea because it fits their ponzi perfectly. The dumb fck cant even see a simple Economics, so he blame it on POW expense. Yet you still haven't explained how $500 million value transferred out of the Bitcoin eco-system "doesn't matter". Just explain this if you think it's simple economics. |
|
|
|
PoW means fair distribution. In PoS only, you basically have to buy coins someone premined or created with his premined coins. What a joke! Yet some support this idea Yeah, Satoshi mined 50%+ of the coins in the first year, that's really fair? Most PoS has better distribution in the first year. Also if you really love PoW for distribution, you could use it for distribution, Like peercoin did, and the fade it out later, I'm not really against distribution via PoW. It's the PERPETUAL part that annoys me. |
|
|
|
First end PoW mining, otherwise it might not even survive long enough to "evolve".
You certainly are on a mission, aren't you? Just fork it and let the better protocol win. Why would I do that? I'm a stakeholder of the existing protocol, I am entitled to express my concern regarding the insane PoW expense, which is perpetually sucking value out of my stake in Bitcoin. like 0.1 btc? Why does POW expense matter? Do you even know Economics? If the money supply is cheap (lol) then so is the value of that money. If the supply rate is too high, then that means the adoption rate (velocity) is too low. Now think about it for a second and see how dump you sound for thinking POW expense matters at all. $500 million per year in PoW expense doesn't matter? it's value transferred out of the Bitcoin eco-system. It's dumb to think PoW expense doesn't matter like i said, you didnt even spend a min to think huh? you dont even know what you want is lowering money supply rate. It has nothing to do with ......POW expense retard. Oh I see why you are arguing for PoW now, you are a PoW miner, you post a lot on hardware threads. So go away, PoW miner shill with no logical argument. |
|
|
|
First end PoW mining, otherwise it might not even survive long enough to "evolve".
You certainly are on a mission, aren't you? Just fork it and let the better protocol win. Why would I do that? I'm a stakeholder of the existing protocol, I am entitled to express my concern regarding the insane PoW expense, which is perpetually sucking value out of my stake in Bitcoin. like 0.1 btc? Why does POW expense matter? Do you even know Economics? If the money supply is cheap (lol) then so is the value of that money. If the supply rate is too high, then that means the adoption rate (velocity) is too low. Now think about it for a second and see how dump you sound for thinking POW expense matters at all. $500 million per year in PoW expense doesn't matter? it's value transferred out of the Bitcoin eco-system. It's dumb to think PoW expense doesn't matter like i said, you didnt even spend a min to think huh? you dont even know what you want is lowering money supply rate. It has nothing to do with ......POW expense retard. Wow, how dumb can you be? do you think PoW expense magically goes away when money supply is gone? then who's going to secure the Bitcoin network at that point? Like I said PoW is a PERPETUAL expense, that has NOTHING to do with money supply. |
|
|
|
First end PoW mining, otherwise it might not even survive long enough to "evolve".
You certainly are on a mission, aren't you? Just fork it and let the better protocol win. Why would I do that? I'm a stakeholder of the existing protocol, I am entitled to express my concern regarding the insane PoW expense, which is perpetually sucking value out of my stake in Bitcoin. like 0.1 btc? Why does POW expense matter? Do you even know Economics? If the money supply is cheap (lol) then so is the value of that money. If the supply rate is too high, then that means the adoption rate (velocity) is too low. Now think about it for a second and see how dump you sound for thinking POW expense matters at all. $500 million per year in PoW expense doesn't matter? it's value transferred out of the Bitcoin eco-system. It's dumb to think PoW expense doesn't matter like i said, you didnt even spend a min to think huh? Stupid Because you have no clear argument for me to think about? because you are trying to spin the concept of transferring $500 million USD value out of the Bitcoin eco-system is something that doesn't matter? |
|
|
|
First end PoW mining, otherwise it might not even survive long enough to "evolve".
You certainly are on a mission, aren't you? Just fork it and let the better protocol win. Why would I do that? I'm a stakeholder of the existing protocol, I am entitled to express my concern regarding the insane PoW expense, which is perpetually sucking value out of my stake in Bitcoin. like 0.1 btc? Why does POW expense matter? Do you even know Economics? If the money supply is cheap (lol) then so is the value of that money. If the supply rate is too high, then that means the adoption rate (velocity) is too low. Now think about it for a second and see how dump you sound for thinking POW expense matters at all. $500 million per year in PoW expense doesn't matter? it's value transferred out of the Bitcoin eco-system. It's dumb to think PoW expense doesn't matter |
|
|
|
First end PoW mining, otherwise it might not even survive long enough to "evolve".
You certainly are on a mission, aren't you? Just fork it and let the better protocol win. Why would I do that? I'm a stakeholder of the existing protocol, I am entitled to express my concern regarding the insane PoW expense, which is perpetually sucking value out of my stake in Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
First end PoW mining, otherwise it might not even survive long enough to "evolve".
|
|
|
|
|
The distribution scheme of NuShares is a complete disaster, black box operation. How can others have confidence when you distribute this way? I would recommend everyone to stay the hell away from this.
|
|
|
|
Did you really need to bring back such an old thread??
Why not just copy and paste the link to the old thread and copy and paste your contents in here like everyone else does?
This should probably be under speculation too, since you are speculating about price and amount to maintain it. This isn't really discussing bitcoin protocol it is discussing money/price/value.
With the price this low I am seeing the same sentiment I saw back in November 2011 when the price was at its lowest...figured I'd bring back a taste of what was going on at that time. We got lucky and China got on board, bringing massive amount of capital inflow, to easily offset the PoW mining expense and still have massive price growth. Now either we find another China, or live with the perpetual decline in price, due to the $500 million per year PoW mining expense. |
|
|
|
Updating the numbers:
(3600 blocks per day * $380) / 6 = $228,000
why divide by 6? That showed the amount of bitcoins on the exchanges vs the amount in circulation. It is only those bitcoins that actually affect the price while the rest are absorbed into the economy. The difference could be different now as I do not have numbers on all of the exchanges but it should be similar. that's ridiculous, the newly mined Bitcoin could be all sent to the exchange, how would you know? I bet at least 90% of newly mined Bitcoin are immediately sent to exchange and sold. Most miners need to ROI on their equipment and pay the electric bill. That would be reflected in the amount of bitcoins going through the exchange. How do you know? you have the incoming and outgoing data for every single exchange? Even if those coin are not on the exchange, they are still in existence, therefore will affect the economy/price at some point. You can't just ignore them. Or are you saying the Bitcoin marketcap should just count the coins currently on exchange? |
|
|
|
Updating the numbers:
(3600 blocks per day * $380) / 6 = $228,000
why divide by 6? That showed the amount of bitcoins on the exchanges vs the amount in circulation. It is only those bitcoins that actually affect the price while the rest are absorbed into the economy. The difference could be different now as I do not have numbers on all of the exchanges but it should be similar. that's ridiculous, the newly mined Bitcoin could be all sent to the exchange, how would you know? I bet at least 90% of newly mined Bitcoin are immediately sent to exchange and sold. Most miners need to ROI on their equipment and pay the electric bill. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
