Hey everybody, Luxor Technologies just released its custom firmware for the S19j Pro and S19 XP (more S19 series to come):

https : // luxor. tech / firmware

More info here in the documentation:

https : // docs. firmware. luxor. tech / intro

Curious to hear everyone's thoughts!

Heck!

ChipMixer was seized by US and German authorities.
1909.4 Bitcoin in 55 Transactions (44.2 Million Euro) with 7 TB Data seized. The most famous Mixer on this forum ended their journey.



http://chipmixer.com/

https://www.europol.europa.eu/media-press/newsroom/news/one-of-darkwebs-largest-cryptocurrency-laundromats-washed-out

Well, I have to clarify that personally I have never had any loan or debt in my life so this thread has nothing to do with my experience but intends to find out how people in loan/debt deal with the problem. Let's say you take loans from a bank and sometimes for whatever reason, you can not pay the debt on time, then you borrow money from other channels. Sure this works for a certain period but later bad things may happen, you have to postpone the payment and struggle with finances again. Isn't this a vicious circle ? How would you deal with the problem ? I am all ears.

First bitcoin is open for everyone to acquire and upon that if you acquired a bitcoin without you telling anyone nobody who willhave the idea you are holding bitcoin, so tell me how would your parents know you have bitcoin without you telling them you've purchase some fractions of bitcoin. Age 80 to 90 are too old for them to still have the activeness to operate around the internet or thinking of investing into cryptocurrency all less they are investing for their children. Though they read news online or being active, any one of such age going into bitcoin are just slowly looking for their death at hand because I don't think they might be able to control their blood pressure (BP) due to the rise and fall bitcoin.

Not looking forward to that possibility, although if you look at this bank's stock chart since 2008, you could surmise that something was off.

never heard of 1 for 1 swap. i always heard people saying you sell it to them for way less than they sell it back to you at. plus you can only offset your electricity bill you can never end up with a credit, that's what i heard too.

but when you do it that way, you would owe the excise tax when you get it back from the grid. everything you get from the grid would get taxed that 30%. but if you had a battery system it would still get taxed there's no way around paying the tax from your solar. you're still using it. you're just storing it somewhere before you use it. right?

In 2021, Credit Suisse had assets under management (AuM) of over CHF 1.6 trillion. On February 9, 2023, the bank reported an annual loss of CHF 7.3 bn, the biggest loss since the 2008 global financial crisis.
Another bank collapse will send Bitcoin over 30k$ imho

Credit Suisse crashes to record low as it warns of 'material weaknesses' in its financial reporting
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-11860583/Credit-Suisse-crashes-record-low-warns-material-weaknesses.html

"It revealed the firm had identified 'certain material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting' for 2022 and 2021."


That's one way of saying you are broke I guess.
 

there's people that do that?  but i guess that answers my question.

how do you figure that? unless you never buy it back from the grid to do any mining...but i would think you sell it for less than you pay for it. maybe time to have some battery storage. like a power wall.

both of them need to be implemented. but i'd say the excise tax on power usage is the more important one. the only part i disagree with is someone that generates their own power being required to pay a tax on that. but maybe there is some rationale to it that i'm not getting...

So finally backtracking a bit and as the math of probabilities starts tempering it down, I don't think any miner could be shutting down now that he has 20% more revenue. Still going up compared to the previous diff, 46,58, 63 blocks ahead but the rhythm of the growth might finally take a break.

Now, the funny question is, how much gear was offline at 6 cents/th, it's still sitting in the same warehouse ready to be deployed, and is profitable at ~9 cents/th? The s17 only needs 9 cents per kWh to start being profitable again at those levels, if the price keeps going up, are we going to see the biggest bump in terms of exahash (not %) ever?


And turning NYC into Pyongyang at night 

IMPOSE DIGITAL ASSET MINING ENERGY EXISE TAX Current Law
Current law does not provide tax rules specifically addressing digital assets, with the exception of certain rules relating to broker reporting and reporting of cash transactions.
Reasons for Change
Digital asset mining is a process for validating transactions among holders of digital assets to record and transfer cryptographically secured assets on a distributed ledger by, for example, using high-powered computers to perform calculations to select the validator.
The computational effort involved in mining can be substantial and can therefore require a correspondingly large amount of energy. The increase in energy consumption attributable to the growth of digital asset mining has negative environmental effects and can have environmental justice implications as well as increase energy prices for those that share an electricity grid with digital asset miners. Digital asset mining also creates uncertainty and risks to local utilities and communities, as mining activity is highly variable and highly mobile.
An excise tax on electricity usage by digital asset miners could reduce mining activity along with its associated environmental impacts and other harms.
Proposal
Any firm using computing resources, whether owned by the firm or leased from others, to mine digital assets would be subject to an excise tax equal to 30 percent of the costs of electricity used in digital asset mining.
Firms engaged in digital asset mining would be required to report the amount and type of electricity used as well as the value of that electricity, if purchased externally. Firms that lease computational capacity would be required to report the value of the electricity used by the lessor firm attributable to the leased capacity, which would serve as the tax base. Firms that produce or acquire power off-grid, for example by using the output of a particular electricity generating plant, would be subject to an excise tax equal to 30 percent of estimated electricity costs.
Except as otherwise provided by the Secretary, the term “digital asset” means any digital representation of value which is recorded on a cryptographically secured distributed ledger or any similar technology as specified by the Secretary.
The proposal would be effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2023. The excise tax would be phased in over three years at a rate of 10 percent in the first year, 20 percent in the second, and 30 percent thereafter.
71
General Explanations of the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2024 Revenue Proposals

MODERNIZE RULES, INCLUDING THOSE FOR DIGITAL ASSETS
APPLY THE WASH SALE RULES TO DIGITAL ASSETS AND ADDRESS RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS
Current Law
Section 1091 of the Internal Revenue Code disallows a loss from a sale of stock or securities if the same or substantially identical stock or securities are purchased within 30 days before or after the sale (a “wash sale”) unless the taxpayer is a dealer in stock or securities and the loss is sustained in the ordinary course of its dealer business. If the stock or securities are purchased at a price that differs from the sale price of the stock or securities sold, appropriate adjustments are made to the basis of the purchased stock or securities. The holding period for the purchased stock or securities takes into account the holding period for the sold stock or securities. As a result, the effect of the wash sale rules ordinarily is to defer the recognition of a loss until the taxpayer finally disposes of the stock or securities. The wash sale rules also apply to sales of stock or securities where the taxpayer enters into a contract or option to buy the same or substantially identical stock or securities within the 30-day window, and to certain short sales of stock or securities. The wash sales are intended to ensure that taxpayers cannot recognize losses without exiting their position in a loss asset for a meaningful period of time.
The Internal Revenue Service treats a loss from a sale of stock or securities by a taxpayer that causes its individual retirement account or Roth IRA to purchase substantially identical stock or securities within 30 days of the sale as subject to the wash sale rule.52
Except as otherwise provided by the Secretary or her delegates (Secretary), brokers who report gross proceeds and basis from the sale of stock or securities determine a customer’s adjusted basis without regard to the wash sale rules, unless the transaction occurs in the same account with respect to identical securities.
Reasons for Change
Taxpayers with loss positions in digital assets are engaging in transactions that would be subject to the wash sale rules if the digital assets were subject to section 1091. For example, a taxpayer may sell a digital asset that is not considered a stock or security for wash sale purposes at a loss on one day and repurchase the same digital asset the next day. The same loss recognition rules should apply to digital assets held as investments or for trading as would apply for stocks and securities.
The wash sale rules should also be updated to provide statutory rules addressing related party transactions, and to reflect new types of financial instruments that have developed since the last amendments made to those rules.
52 Revenue Ruling 2008-5, 2008-1 C.B. 271.
190
    General Explanations of the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2024 Revenue Proposals
Broker reporting rules should be amended to reflect these changes to the wash sale rules.
Proposal
The wash sales rules would be amended to add digital assets to the list of assets subject to the wash sale rules. Except as otherwise provided by the Secretary, the term “digital asset” means any digital representation of value which is recorded on a cryptographically secured distributed ledger or any similar technology as specified by the Secretary.53 Regulatory authority would be granted to the Secretary to treat any security as defined by section 475(c)(2), or any commodity as defined by section 475(e)(2), or other assets traded on an established market as subject to the wash sale rules as necessary to prevent abuse. The basis and holding period rules applicable to purchased assets would be revised to reflect the expanded scope of the wash sale rules. These expanded rules are not intended to apply to ordinary course business transactions. The Secretary would have authority to prescribe regulations defining the term ‘substantially identical” and to provide an exception to the application of the wash sale rules for ordinary course business transactions (not including trading) involving digital assets.
The wash sale rules, as they apply to all assets and not only digital assets, would be modified with respect to transactions involving related persons, except as otherwise provided in regulations prescribed by the Secretary. In the case of any loss from a sale of assets subject to the wash sale rules and a purchase by a related party of the same or substantially identical assets within 30 days of the sale, the loss would be deferred until the related party sells or otherwise disposes of the asset or such other time as specified by the Secretary, provided that the taxpayer and a related party do not reacquire the asset within 30 days before or after that sale or disposition, or the parties cease to be related. A related party would include members of a taxpayer’s family and tax-favored accounts such as individual retirement accounts controlled by the taxpayer or the taxpayer’s spouse. Two entities would be related to each other if one controlled the other, directly or indirectly, or both were under the common control of either a third entity or the taxpayer and one or more family members. An individual would be related to an entity if the entity is controlled, directly or indirectly, by the individual and the individual’s family members. The Secretary would have authority to issue regulations expanding this definition as necessary to prevent abuse, to provide rules for transactions where a taxpayer sold assets at a loss and both the taxpayer and a related party acquired the same or substantially similar assets, and to coordinate the operation of the wash sale rules with other rules dealing with sales of loss property between related parties (sections 267 and 707).
The wash sale rules also would be amended to address derivative financial instruments more comprehensively, including modifications to the basis rules to prevent abuse.
The Secretary would have authority to require brokers to report such information as may be necessary or appropriate to implement the wash sale rules. Except as otherwise provided by the
53 This definition is the same as that provided in section 6045(g)(3)(D). It is intended that the Secretary may exercise her authority to provide that the term “digital asset” has a meaning for wash sale purposes that is not identical to its meaning for purposes of regulations issued under section 6045.
191
  General Explanations of the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2024 Revenue Proposals

Secretary, brokers reporting a customer’s adjusted basis on a disposition of a digital asset or other asset subject to the wash sale rules would report the basis of the asset without regard to the wash sale rules unless the sale of the loss asset and the transaction causing the wash sale rules to apply occur in the same account with respect to identical assets.
No inference is intended as to whether the losses claimed by taxpayers from wash sales of digital assets may be deducted under current law, or as to the proper treatment of transactions involving related parties under the wash sale rules under current law.
The proposal would be effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2023.

https://www.bitrawr.com/difficulty-estimator


Latest Block:   780792  (4 minutes ago)

Current Pace:   111.8988%  (601 / 537.09 expected, 63.91 ahead)

Previous Difficulty:   43053844193928.45                            
Current Difficulty:   43551722213590.37                            
Next Difficulty:   between 46053487718885 and 48773977705509
Next Difficulty Change:   between +5.7444% and +11.9909%
Previous Retarget:   last Friday at 4:43 PM  (+1.1564%)
Next Retarget (earliest):   March 23, 2023 at 6:00 AM  (in 8d 18h 45m 21s)
Next Retarget (latest):   March 23, 2023 at 11:36 PM  (in 9d 12h 21m 26s)
Projected Epoch Length:   between 12d 12h 16m 16s and 13d 5h 52m 21s
Copy stats to clipboard

NEW: 🇺🇸 US Administration insider Jason Lowery: "Soon, powerful people within the US government will try to assert that supporting #Bitcoin is a threat to US National Security. " 👀😱

https://twitter.com/BitcoinNewsCom/status/1635366078972071936?t=uYUHZImRr7vNgkOAgsBjew&s=19

what do you think?

Why don't you do it?
Cause you're the one bitching around for a change!
It's you who wants to change something based on the will of "the people", not me!


Eh, just as how they think they are the voice of the majority they also must invent adversaries to blame them for their failures, I got used to this.


Sorry but almost nobody cares about anything else than the price per tx in $, the same the "we" whoever they are don't care even about the sat/b fee, all they know is that to send money they need to pay x $ and it's a pretty normal thing, just throwing random numbers here do you think a 500 million RON house is expensive or that paying 1 million Vietnamese dongs for a burger is cheap? Without checking how much that is in your local currency of course you won't know it! All those users who bitch about fees want to pay $0.00025 as the are fees now over the meme coin while the cheapest one in BTC in last block is $0.24, nothing else.

And if we bring security and stuff in the equation then we're back to what Phil said and which probably too many ignored:


So, to make things clear and show a better picture, you will have a network worth the GDP of EU, USA and China combined, protected by gear worth the budget of Charlotte. Yeah, the price keeps the reward up by negating the halving, but you have more and more value pilling up with the same protection, and hash rate alone as in exahash or petahash doesn't mean a thing when you don't factor in how much it cost!
Because if now at 300exh it cost 5 billion to attack it then obviously at 150Th/s in 2013 you could attack it for $2500? Oh wait!