My math might be shit, ...
I'm not checking your math. What you're missing is appreciation in price. |
|
|
|
In other news: today, Bitcoin is down to 82.5% market share of the crypto space. Lower than any other data point in my recent memory.
Wasn't there a time in early 2015 in which Ripple had nearly 25% of the market cap of bitcoin? Seems like it. There was a time when Ripple's market cap exceeded that of Bitcoin. No, really. Stop laughing - you're gonna feel foolish when you check the facts. Hello? That's not what I said. O.k... I may be a little bit off on my facts, but if you look at coinmarket cap, and you compare bitcoin's market cap on December 22, 2014 of $4.4 Billion to Ripple's market cap of $754 million, I calculate that to be about 17%, yet I did not research all of the market caps of all of the other alts on that same date, but from that quickie research, it appears that your assertion that 82.5% market share for bitcoin as the lowest ever, is not accurate. By the way, it appears that on December 22, 2014 litecoin had a market cap of about $100 million and Doge had about $18 million... Now, I am tired of research, yet I think I made my point.  Two things: 1) I didn't say lowest ever. I said lowest in recent memory. 2) Right - you said within 25% or so, and you found a data point to confirm it. I was not arguing against your point, just pointing out that it was way wider thatn your 25% - indeed, at one time Ripple was bigger than Bitcoin. The superfluous tag sentences were merely to drive home how surprised I feel most might be to leran this. Bonus 3) Well, duh. If Ripple alone used to be bigger than Bitcoin, it is obvious that Bitcoin's market share has indeed been lower than 82.5%. But 82.5% is a recent low. This is a metric I check once a week or so. When I see any new trend, I go looking for a reason. I think the reason this time is a foolish FOMO into ETH. I think many are likely to end up hurt when this pops. But some other alts are also rising. Is this a trend with legs? I hope not. If Bitcoin dies, the entire crypto field will be set back by a decade or more. But I'm keeping my eye on it. |
|
|
|
Hey - it's crypto. RSA 2016 The Association for Computing Machinery used the RSA 2016 conference to announce the winners of its annual Turing Award: encryption wizards Whitfield Diffie and Martin Hellman.
"Naturally I'm thrilled by this by this award, but thrilled for cryptography," Diffie said. "It's the third time the Turing award has been given to cryptographers. The fact that it is so central to the field is amazing."
Diffie and Hellman published their seminal paper New Directions in Cryptography [PDF] in 1976 and it outlined the first public-key cryptography system, allowing people to encrypt data using publicly exchanged keys and decrypt information using their secret private keys.
... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/01/diffie_and_hellman_scoop_turing_award_for_key_work_on_crypto/ |
|
|
|
In other news: today, Bitcoin is down to 82.5% market share of the crypto space. Lower than any other data point in my recent memory.
Wasn't there a time in early 2015 in which Ripple had nearly 25% of the market cap of bitcoin? Seems like it. There was a time when Ripple's market cap exceeded that of Bitcoin. No, really. Stop laughing - you're gonna feel foolish when you check the facts. |
|
|
|
|
In other news: today, Bitcoin is down to 82.5% market share of the crypto space. Lower than any other data point in my recent memory.
|
|
|
|
|
Of course, the design (hope) is that the doubled scarcity (halved rate of new production) will cause price to ~2x. But we know that the market will front-run this expectation to some extent, and maybe lag a bit as well. But for miners, the instant is the instant - revenues suddenly halved.
By no means do I think it is fatal - we've been through it before. I'm just puzzled why it is not more nearly continuous. Same for the difficulty adjustment.
|
|
|
|
Obviously I don't know, but my guess is that it is to front load the distribution... for subsidizing the growth of transactions hard and early, attracting the most amount of mining power at the most vulnerable time for the network, the beginning.
Right, but that could still be done while also ... Having it be smoothed or stepped
|
|
|
|
The halving schedule is pretty extreme, at the beginning. It becomes less and less extreme quite quickly as the number of transactions scales up with their accompanying fees...
To a miner, a halving is a halving. This has a good chance in causing step-function reductions in security, as hashpower becomes unprofitable overnight. Seems to me a closer approximation to a continuous function might have been better design. But what do I know? I'm a bear. Waiting for mah dinner. |
|
|
|
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-March/012489.htmlWe are coming up on the subsidy halving this July, and there have been some
concerns raised that a non-trivial number of miners could potentially drop off
the network. This would result in a significantly longer block interval, which
also means a higher per-block transaction volume, which could cause the block
size limit to legitimately be hit much sooner than expected.
[...]
To alleviate this risk, it seems reasonable to propose a hardfork to the
difficulty adjustment algorithm so it can adapt quicker to such a significant
drop in mining rate. BtcDrak tells me he has well-tested code for this in his
altcoin Hahahaha  Go go Core! In all truthfulness, I have always wondered the reason for the 2016-block difficulty adjustment. A finer-grained adjustment seems just natural to me. Though I've never looked into it. What are the arguments against a more continuous adjustment? (The four-year halving always seemed funny to me too. Done merely for simplicity of implementation?) It could help a minority chain fork get some blocks solved while they're rolling out their PoW change... Sorry - not following. Expanded explanation available? Incidentally, the irony of Core calling for HF changes to the actual* consensus mechanism is not lost on me. *I do not consider block size to be part of the fundamental consensus mechanism. |
|
|
|
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-March/012489.htmlWe are coming up on the subsidy halving this July, and there have been some
concerns raised that a non-trivial number of miners could potentially drop off
the network. This would result in a significantly longer block interval, which
also means a higher per-block transaction volume, which could cause the block
size limit to legitimately be hit much sooner than expected.
[...]
To alleviate this risk, it seems reasonable to propose a hardfork to the
difficulty adjustment algorithm so it can adapt quicker to such a significant
drop in mining rate. BtcDrak tells me he has well-tested code for this in his
altcoin Hahahaha Go go Core! In all truthfulness, I have always wondered the reason for the 2016-block difficulty adjustment. A finer-grained adjustment seems just natural to me. Though I've never looked into it. What are the arguments against a more continuous adjustment? (The four-year halving always seemed funny to me too. Done merely for simplicity of implementation?) |
|
|
|
I don't understand why some people include everything in to religion???
Dude, you want to make money, you are welcome here. But if you just want to understand the relation between religion and making money, I would love to kick you out from here because you are polluting the forum.
Keep religion aside and take part in any constructive discussion. But don't try to bring some stone aged theory in to this forum.
I don't believe in A Supreme Being, but I find your militant yet impotent intolerance to be simply adorable. |
|
|
|
A notable retrocoiner, Mircea, concedes loss of faith in Bitcoin:
Good. That notable retrocoiner irritating narcissistic blowhard is toxic to bitcoin. Alas, your quoted material seems not to support your conclusion. He's been swinging his self-proclaimed massive crypto-schlong around long enough. Yet despite previous threats, there is nothing in the quote where he signals a divestiture. Sure, if he dumps from loss of faith, we might have a short-term drop. But hath the emperor any clothes? One thing we've unambiguously learned from this is that he not only is bereft of significant mining power, but also bereft of significant influence over those that actually control mining power. |
|
|
|
Homeros office will be in a border since he's a wet back
Now, now. Less of the racist epithet, please. 'Round these parts, 'wetback' is not a racial epithet, but rather a legal-socio-economic epithet. It is understood to refer to illegal immigrants from the other side of USA's southern border, regardless of ethnicity. It is a slight reference to what was once the prevalent means of entry for these illegal immigrants - swimming the Rio Grande, which forms a large portion of said border. #justsayin' |
|
|
|
About a minute after the previous block. How long did it take to arrive? We don't know. Perhaps a few seconds before they scored their block (lucky them)? Would you expect them to just not mine in the time it takes them to build a new block that excludes all transactions in the previous? |
|
|
|
That hardly seems like a solution that would work for large commercial purposes. Do you envision some poor lonely character toiling 24 hours a day, looking up an entry in an accounts payable database, checking some source for the proper transaction fee at that instant, and then handcrafting a transaction, keyed by hand, into some generic wallet?
You need to catch up with the pull requests. Modern wallets dynamically adjust fees without users needing to look them up. These are old features. Again, you miss the point. An entity that regularly needs to make hundreds of transactions is not likely to be entering each one by hand into some off-the-shelf wallet. The fact that some make fee suggestions (some wildly off the mark, by recent reports) is irrelevant. What wallet do you use?
Several. Mostly Armory, Electrum, Satoshi, and Schildbach. Though I don't see how this is relevant - I'm not in the high-volume-transaction business. Were you not trying to imply that the larger transaction fee was less than the amount lost in converting from alt to bitcoin for the purpose of cashing out? 'Cause that's certainly what it looks like.
It is simply a fact that many miners sell a percentage of their mined Alts for BTC and it usually is less expensive to pay the 4 pennies difference than exchange fees. My statement doesn't assume this will always be the case and me mentioning it was merely to reflect that if the company was trying to best serve their clients current needs they would simply tack on the extra btc fee instead of making a political statement motivated because they are likely a large altcoin bagholder. I find your assertion that you know what is best for some other entity's customers mildly interesting. The road to centralization is paved with 'better for them' intentions. |
|
|
|
Lol... The last 4 LTC blocks (the equivalent of 1 BTC block), LTC had 4-2-3-6 txs, of which 4 are the block rewards (so actual txs = 11).
Last BTC block had over 2000 txs. It's averaging between 2k and 3k txs per block (last 6: 2165/3079/2496/2300/2782/3012).
Why the lol? No... really. Are you trying to make the case that the only reason LTC has only processed 11 transactions in that time is because they are limited to that number? Would that be by design or by flaw? ... Why the lol? No... really. What do you want me to say for a "business" that doesn't want to pay a few cents and says "Altcoins are now cheaper to use than bitcoin."... like it was ever the opposite. Laughing about a business seeking to optimize the value of the expenditures it makes brands you as someone unknowledgeable about how to run a business. That's all. |
|
|
|
Lol... The last 4 LTC blocks (the equivalent of 1 BTC block), LTC had 4-2-3-6 txs, of which 4 are the block rewards (so actual txs = 11).
Last BTC block had over 2000 txs. It's averaging between 2k and 3k txs per block (last 6: 2165/3079/2496/2300/2782/3012).
Why the lol? No... really. Are you trying to make the case that the only reason LTC has only processed 11 transactions in that time is because they are limited to that number? Would that be by design or by flaw? ... Why the lol? No... really. |
|
|
|
Your refusal to consider what they are saying seems myopic. They are not complaining about another 3-4 cents. They are complaining about unknowable transaction inclusion times.
Transaction inclusion can never be a given. You could hit 2 miners mining empty blocks because that's what they want to do - even if you pay 5$ in fees. Transaction confirmation time can also never be a given, because the 10 minutes are an average. A block could be delayed 2 hours or you could have 5 blocks found in 20 minutes, due to variance.. That's the nature of bitcoin. You insult my intelligence. Intentionally? Or is that all the ammo you have? The amount of determinism in a usually-full-block scenario is vastly reduced in comparison to the usually-room-in-blocks scenario. Period. You realize this, right? |
|
|
|
Your refusal to consider what they are saying seems myopic. They are not complaining about another 3-4 cents. They are complaining about unknowable transaction inclusion times.
If they used a modern wallet that calculated the dynamic fees than they wouldn't need to worry. I can use a normal priority setting with bitcoin core and get within the next block every time, no concerns(even with this probable spam attack). That hardly seems like a solution that would work for large commercial purposes. Do you envision some poor lonely character toiling 24 hours a day, looking up an entry in an accounts payable database, checking some source for the proper transaction fee at that instant, and then handcrafting a transaction, keyed by hand, into some generic wallet? I mean it might work for a small operation, but does not work at scale. Yes, they could craft a SW solution of their own to do this. Yet if they rely on some central fee/byte trend tracker, that's one more nexus of trustful behavior. And again, you are ignoring what they have said. Whether or not true, it is certainly plausible that they have abandoned bitcoin for this part of their operations for exactly this reason. You seem to believe that the only route in and out of alts -- and all use cases of alts -- involve Bitcoin. I submit to you that this is likely to be false. Over time, should Bitcoin keep ostracizing more and more use cases, this presumed partial dependency is likely to become less and less.
You seem to be under the impression that I'm a bitcoin Maximalist, which isn't the case. I have been quit clear my objections to Ethereum(and it has little to do with bitcoins network effect) and would be perfectly happy giving up bitcoin for a better suited alt if the need arose. I was making no value judjement about you being a Bitcoin maximalist (whatever that is) - my counter stands on its own. Allow me to restore your quote that you later snipped: ... many clients are dumping a portion of these mined alts for btc anyways and it is less expensive to pay 4 pennies more than any exchange fee.
Were you not trying to imply that the larger transaction fee was less than the amount lost in converting from alt to bitcoin for the purpose of cashing out? 'Cause that's certainly what it looks like. |
|
|
|
Lol... The last 4 LTC blocks (the equivalent of 1 BTC block), LTC had 4-2-3-6 txs, of which 4 are the block rewards (so actual txs = 11).
Last BTC block had over 2000 txs. It's averaging between 2k and 3k txs per block (last 6: 2165/3079/2496/2300/2782/3012).
Why the lol? No... really. Are you trying to make the case that the only reason LTC has only processed 11 transactions in that time is because they are limited to that number? Would that be by design or by flaw? Point is, while Bitcoin has captured a paltry $6B market cap (as compared to global monetary base), pointing your finger at another even smaller entity (~2.4%) and laughing makes you look the petty bully. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
