If you think the majority supports ordinals, why don't you create a poll on this and we'll see who's the majority?  I'd gladly fork this crap off immediately but unfortunately I'm not a core dev so all I can do is urge people to act responsibly (rarely works).  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! ~ Where did he state that the majority supports Ordinals, and since when is bitcointalk the gate to the majority? 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. Bigger blocks does not necessarily mean cheaper transactions, if you want to count them in dollars, including all costs. As an experiment, you can compare for example BTC (where mempool congestion can happen) with BCH (where hard-fork can always increase the maximum block size, so you can pay one satoshi per byte, and get it confirmed). Then, you can look at on-chain fees, it will turn out that BTC is more expensive to transact on-chain. And then, you can compare the price of both coins in dollars. You will see that the price change is more costly than transaction fees, and it is very unlikely to find a case, where you pick some starting date and amount, you pick some frequency of transactions (for example, one transaction per day), and in some long period of time you will end up with a higher amount in dollars for BCH than BTC.
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: in 2056 if fees do not grow and efficiency doubles we can have 640 eh hashrate mining .
the value of the vault and guards protecting the 40 trillion cap will be the same 6-13 billion that protects the network now.
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! in 2013 the network still used some gpus and a few fpgas with asics. asics burned 10 watts for .333 gh or 30 watts for 1 gh or 30000 watts a th. these were the first usb asic sticks. I had 150 of them running for a while which were burning about 10 watts each. long time ago. the power improvements since then have been remarkable. they are not going to happen at that level. One could argue the watt efficiency improvements super charged price. |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
