|
That bill is not passing.
|
|
|
|
I know a man in the U.S that use solar power to mine Bitcoin, I lost contact with him in 2022, he told me how he makes money by selling power back to the Grid, I would have love to hear what he plans to do with this 30% tax on Bitcoin mining, because it is not possible to keep mining 24 hours per day using solar energy without the grid power.
We have 3 arrays 280 kwatts 110 kwatts 45 kwatts 435kwatts total which with grid sales means we burn 60kwatts 24/7/365 and net zero so 60kwatts of free power but our mine burns 130kwatts so we buy 70 kwatts an hour on the cheap My guess is if this happens we have to cut back to 60kwatts of free power and no cheap power with that 30% tax. No worries as that bill will bomb. |
|
|
|
Right now, it says Current Pace: 112.1541% (486 / 433.33 expected, 52.67 ahead) The quote is simply on-chain data translated to a language that the average joe can understand, the first block of this epoch was 780192 it was mined 72 hours and 12 mins ago IF luck was 100% and no hashrate was added/taken out, that would have been enough time to find only 433 so the current block we should be working on would be 780626, but right now we are working on block 780678, so we found 12% more blocks, pretty accurate, whether sustainable or not is the question, also, how likely is it to find 12% blocks in 433 blocks on a scale of probability? Yes the pace is the result of that pure random variance. Alas they use that to make way out of the ball park predictions  Anyway, to find 433 blocks at 112% rate = 433 with a mean of 1/1.12 = 0.892857 (assuming the whole 12% is just variance) gsl_cdf_gamma_P(433,433,1.12)=0.0107713 i.e. 1 in 92.8 chance of being 112% or more i.e. of the whole extra 12% just being purely variance and not extra hash rate. Of course some almost certainly is extra hash rate, but how much? We'll see an estimate at the end of the diff change. Exactly that, but if we finish at +12% we will have done 14 + 1 + 12 which is close to 80eh to 85eh or 850,000 s19 pro j's in 6 weeks |
|
|
|
what this has to do with "crypto" in the first place?
Jeopardy: "A recent Silicon Valley-based bank that was a major player in providing fiat liquidity for the crypto exchanges" nonsense...SVB and signature had very little exposure to "crypto". The only one that had was Silvergate, which failed quietly. The rest failed because of the mismatch between withdrawals and declined value of holdings. You listen to MSM a bit too much, it seems. They call it this way to place the blame on us, but it does not "stick". Yep they did not ladder buy fed bonds as rates raised. Poor risk management banking 101 fail. So far, bitcoin is reacting as I hoped it would react. I would like to see a nice big 10k green dildo after tomorrow's cpi numbers. The idea that banks are too fucking stupid to ladder buy into raising fed rates could mean raising bond rates will cause BTC to go onwards and upwards |
|
|
|
what this has to do with "crypto" in the first place?
Jeopardy: "A recent Silicon Valley-based bank that was a major player in providing fiat liquidity for the crypto exchanges" nonsense...SVB and signature had very little exposure to "crypto". The only one that had was Silvergate, which failed quietly. The rest failed because of the mismatch between withdrawals and declined value of holdings. You listen to MSM a bit too much, it seems. They call it this way to place the blame on us, but it does not "stick". Also Silverbank didn't fail. It's closing down while fulfilling all it's obligations. SVB defaulted and is getting itself bailed out with tax payer money. Tax payer money to pay the 650M Oprah supposedly had there and all of prince Harry's millions. Are you all enjoying democracy and it's enormous weakness to lobbying? America is not a democracy. It is a democratic republic which is really far from Democracy. |
|
|
|
what this has to do with "crypto" in the first place?
Jeopardy: "A recent Silicon Valley-based bank that was a major player in providing fiat liquidity for the crypto exchanges" nonsense...SVB and signature had very little exposure to "crypto". The only one that had was Silvergate, which failed quietly. The rest failed because of the mismatch between withdrawals and declined value of holdings. You listen to MSM a bit too much, it seems. They call it this way to place the blame on us, but it does not "stick". Yep they did not ladder buy fed bonds as rates raised. Poor risk management banking 101 fail. |
|
|
|
Leaving buddy to do his own thing seems to have been simply brilliant on my part. (maybe just lazy) 24k |
|
|
|
Well it's below 14% now, but as usual, taking any notice of it early on is as pointless as trusting what that site says And it's back over! 46 blocks ahead last night 58 now. As I said many times before I don't care that much about their prediction at the end of the period, I'm watching the blocks getting mined and when you constantly have an increase in those although it doesn't mean for sure the period will end like this, every single day makes the opposite less and less likely. But just as mikey said I wonder if it's even physically possible anymore to have the same pattern as in one of the previous adjustments when again it started with the same almost unbelievable 10% and kept it going till the end. The whole thing is getting ridiculous, 300k miners, one GW in one go just like that? Anyhow, let's look at the bright side, 58 vMB of extra sanctions getting confirmed, it did help the mempool a lot. https://www.bitrawr.com/difficulty-estimatorLatest Block: 780648 (3 minutes ago) Current Pace: 114.6392% (457 / 398.64 expected, 58.36 ahead)Previous Difficulty: 43053844193928.45 Current Difficulty: 43551722213590.37 Next Difficulty: between 45927129368023 and 49982704612275 Next Difficulty Change: between +5.4542% and +14.7663% Previous Retarget: last Friday at 4:43 PM (+1.1564%) Next Retarget (earliest): March 22, 2023 at 10:49 PM (in 9d 10h 39m 11s) Next Retarget (latest): March 24, 2023 at 12:28 AM (in 10d 12h 18m 42s) Projected Epoch Length: between 12d 5h 5m 36s and 13d 6h 45m 7s Copy stats to clipboard 14.6% |
|
|
|
Give the recent issues with USDC, Binance have decided to pump the price of BTC, BNB and ETH by dumping their $1 billion IRI stablecoin holding  Given the changes in stable coins and banks, #Binance will convert the remaining of the $1 billion Industry Recovery Initiative funds from BUSD to native crypto, including #BTC, #BNB and ETH. Some fund movements will occur on-chain. Transparency. Source: https://twitter.com/cz_binance/status/1635131601884700674Clearly should of just gone 100% Bitcoin. Ethereum isn't a reserve asset due to the upgrades that take place while BNB is probably less reliable than USDC. But of course, he shills his exchange token in the process even if only a small percentage goes into it (knowing it's not a reliable SoV). Who was it that said stablecoin failings was bad for Bitcoin? So far price is up +10% and not showing any signs of slowing down. Doubt my $19.2K bid will get filled now, still managed to get $20.2K. Maybe quick pull-back to $21.5K before further upside? Should have just put it all on the 200 Day MA at $19.7K in hindsight. Didn't expect the bullish bounce from support to be so "picture perfect", was anticipating a bit more mess with bear trap, rather than bullish continuation. Now price has left the $19K to $21.5K accumulation zone again. Anyway. Another day, another pump. Back above $23K local distribution zone and price will be re-testing again $25K in no time. 50 Week MA resistance now at $23.1K, down from $24.7K. I got some at 21.3 and some at 20.2 passed on 19.9. I got my dca at 21.2 |
|
|
|
|
two in one day.
.6 fee reward
.1 fee reward.
whats also very nice that btc is rising as you wait for the coin to be liquid.
|
|
|
|
 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/monetary20230312b.htmWashington, DC -- The following statement was released by Secretary of the Treasury Janet L. Yellen, Federal Reserve Board Chair Jerome H. Powell, and FDIC Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg:
Today we are taking decisive actions to protect the U.S. economy by strengthening public confidence in our banking system. This step will ensure that the U.S. banking system continues to perform its vital roles of protecting deposits and providing access to credit to households and businesses in a manner that promotes strong and sustainable economic growth.
After receiving a recommendation from the boards of the FDIC and the Federal Reserve, and consulting with the President, Secretary Yellen approved actions enabling the FDIC to complete its resolution of Silicon Valley Bank, Santa Clara, California, in a manner that fully protects all depositors. Depositors will have access to all of their money starting Monday, March 13. No losses associated with the resolution of Silicon Valley Bank will be borne by the taxpayer.
We are also announcing a similar systemic risk exception for Signature Bank, New York, New York, which was closed today by its state chartering authority. All depositors of this institution will be made whole. As with the resolution of Silicon Valley Bank, no losses will be borne by the taxpayer.
Shareholders and certain unsecured debtholders will not be protected. Senior management has also been removed. Any losses to the Deposit Insurance Fund to support uninsured depositors will be recovered by a special assessment on banks, as required by law.
Finally, the Federal Reserve Board on Sunday announced it will make available additional funding to eligible depository institutions to help assure banks have the ability to meet the needs of all their depositors.
The U.S. banking system remains resilient and on a solid foundation, in large part due to reforms that were made after the financial crisis that ensured better safeguards for the banking industry. Those reforms combined with today's actions demonstrate our commitment to take the necessary steps to ensure that depositors' savings remain safe.Maybe this is better not worse. |
|
|
|
Good day Bitcoinland.
A pretty good day indeed.
Lovely Bart back up.
SVB bank run
Reminding us that Bitcoin
Is the only way.
Money in the bank?
What a silly expression!
Hodlers laugh out loud.
Twenty-two thousand
Is barely a start.
Onward and upward!
Well we have a very long climb back up ⬆️ lets see were we are after the cpi this week. |
|
|
|
If you think the majority supports ordinals, why don't you create a poll on this and we'll see who's the majority? Where did he state that the majority supports Ordinals, and since when is bitcointalk the gate to the majority? [...] It's roughly what's happening, I guess. Miners follow profit, but there is concern on whether short-term profit is greater than long-term, or if excessive fee rate is more desirable in the end. I can guess the miners don't care a lot about the long-term, but a mining expert can give us some better insight. I have been doing for 11 years. started with a mac pro and a single amd gpu. I have 200kwatts used out of 275 kwatt max. I have 2.3ph paid off sha miners I have 45gh paid off Scrypt miners I have 10gh paid off gpus I have some kda miners not much I have some grin miners not much my really good cant lose power is capped at 275 kwatts so my expansion number need to take that into account the no debt expansion is absolutely critical since I dont fear the bear no loans coming due. Am i an expert no. but i do know what is good for me to do. |
|
|
|
Wow this rally will be epic !!! Ppl will fomo into Bitcoin Monday imo
So far you look pretty good. Lets see how you look on monday. |
|
|
|
The discussion reminds me of the sustainability problem. On one extreme, if all moved to lightning there would be minimum incentive to mine. On the other extreme, if all moved on-chain, there would be minimum incentive to use due to the excessive cost. Obviously we'll find an equilibrium. Agreed. People should stop taking extreme positions. Bitcoin is the perfect embodiment of a free market system (hashing difficulty adjustment). On-chain for big transactions + off-chain for microtransactions = equilibrium achieved If only it were this simple. |
|
|
|
The discussion reminds me of the sustainability problem. On one extreme, if all moved to lightning there would be minimum incentive to mine. On the other extreme, if all moved on-chain, there would be minimum incentive to use due to the excessive cost. Obviously we'll find an equilibrium. That could happen as result of people using Bitcoin to buy coffee Forget coffees and teas. This could happen if millions joined the network and wanted to open just one lightning channel. Well I look at this from a mining viewpoint. My power deal will always be good to earn profit. As some say mining a btc costs 16k for me mining a coin costs 50% or 10.2k and the 50% is a constant. Wether I mine any algo I pay 50% all the time. So I look at mining from a different viewpoint then others. Nfts and ordinals will boost fees which in turn means I earn more btc. I realize higher fees may make btc investors not want to have the coin. and lower fees will make miners stop mining the coin. |
|
|
|
|
Man I stopped fighting buddy and all hell broke loose.
I will continue to not contest buddy and hope for a more interesting effect.
I will say this SVB appears to have been targeted with a massive run by depositors.
Wonder what Mon and Tues bring us
|
|
|
|
What does "partial PoW" even mean? I guess it means that LN nodes usually are rewarded without any kind of mining. That means, if you put all coins into LN, then those LN nodes will get all fees that could otherwise be paid to the Proof of Work miners. The issue with such statements is that routing fees or amount locked up in channels have no significance in the security of Lightning, whereas this is the basis of PoS coins. Totally different things. If you earn yield when loaning (any type of) money, that doesn't make that currency PoS and reliant on staking for security, either. Bitcoin's and Lightning's security is and always will be based on proof of work, no matter if you use your BTC to provide someone a service they are willing to pay you for. Bitcoin would not be a reliable payment method because you may never get your payment through.
That could happen as result of people using Bitcoin to buy coffee, not just using NFTs, the blocksize is too small, and takes 10 mins on average to process, any medium sized country using BTC for daily payments will cause the thing you worry about, why assume that only NFT will cause this? By the way nonce when I say "you" I do not refer to you as a single person, just a general statement. That's why I advocate for reducing blockchain load for small transactions e.g. by moving them off-chain, where they have virtually the same security, while keeping the blockchain pretty cheap and easy to host and sync, which is paramount for decentralization. I am not sure myself how much volume we can handle with a combination of Lightning & on-chain at the current block size, but I heavily advocate for keeping it as low as possible for as long as possible. Ordinals goes completely against this by effectively reducing the block space we can effectively use for transactions. LN node must have a btc deposit by the operator. pretty much a fact correct? LN node makes btc for the operator. pretty much a fact correct? While the foundation to the LN node is the mining go the blockchain it is a pos hybrid = do you agree to that? n0nce it may be a fine nuance to say LN is based on mining I agree it is but it is also based on staking because you must leave btc in it to work. I run a full blockchain node and it has 0 btc in it. It is a pure based mining node. LN is not. Back to the real issue scaling an algo and having enough miners to protect the algo means enough rewards for the miners to keep interest. Will NFT's do the Job Will ordinals do the job I don't know. And would they have the staying power to keep doing it for years or decades I don't know. I do suspect that it they stick around they would be a saturated product and not a lasting in demand product. That is the best argument for not having them at all. |
|
|
|
the common logic here is that people don't want blocks to be full because they want to be able to transact at close to 0 fee
[...]
This whole idea of "I want transactions to be cheap and blocks to empty so I can transact for cheap whenever I want" is just stupid at best
I would like to make it clear that I don't worry about higher fees; as long as my transaction gets processed eventually. I do worry about congestion / overloading the network. The issue though is that if you get over ~10 tx per second (not sure about the exact number right now) on average for an extended period of time, it is technically impossible to process all transactions. The mountain would never 'clear', i.e. some transactions will be stuck forever. If more transactions will be added than are mined, I call it 'mempool congestion'. No amount of fee bumping will make Bitcoin process more transactions on average. It can prioritize your transaction, but if everyone set the fee to the same (maximum maybe?) amount, it just becomes a lottery. Bitcoin would not be a reliable payment method because you may never get your payment through. i'm sure a fixed block reward has been discussed ad-nauseum in the past though
It has. but in light of this new nft thing, maybe it need to be revisited.
It may not, in case it was mathematically proven to be a bad idea. I'm not sure about the result of those discussions myself right now, but as someone proposing that idea again, it should be your task to look that up.  Simply use encryption and no one can say you are printing porn or state secrets.
I may agree with storing encrypted data, that's a different story from a legal & moral standpoint. But NFT people aren't interested in that since then nobody would be able to see the JPEGs besides them. and LN that reduces fees and makes btc a partial POW. Okay
There seems to be a misunderstanding about Lightning here. Want to discuss it elsewhere (since off-topic) or do you know that this statement was wrong? hidden nft with an encrypted code could make them more valued not less. As to long term effect of second layer LN to actual blockchain fees. And turning btc into a POW+POS coin you are correct it is a bit off topic. My fear for btc is scrypt algo and merged LTC/Doge mining being the superior algo for mining in the long run. I see BTC as broken but not today more like 2056. The visible path for the sha256 algo and the visible path for the scrypt algo looks better for scrypt. Maybe it is why some are pushing NFT+ordinals as a fix. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
