Checks what day it is...
FUCK YOU JJG!
Haha, I forgot about that. I don’t think he cares though after catching the Binance scam pump. Congrats on that by the way JJG. Observing $30,068! Back over $30,000 after J Powell said they will increase rates another 2 times this year (I dunno why that still causes a reaction in the market btw). I’m looking for us to make a new yearly high before declaring the beginning of a new bull market. I think it stands at $30,800? I could be wrong! Would be great to head into 2024 as we reach the halving at $40,000 to $45,000. Anything over $35,000 puts us in the driving seat for the bull run we were promised and robbed of in 2021 due to CHY-NAH banning bitcoin and COVID fall out. I really think $180,000 or more in 2025 is a lock in. Could go much higher with Blackrock and Fidelity plus others involved but $180,000 seems like a good target. Look forward to the rocket gifs & memes  "250K median, with 180K-320K being the range for the next ATH"....a super-bot whispered in my ear. True story. |
|
|
|
[edited out]
I thought that my original post clearly said that it is 1.36 % or the original supply of 21 mil, but let me reiterate the numbers; Assuming 21 mil supply, apparently lost 4 mil in 14 years, therefore 4/21=0.19; 0.19/14=0.0136=1.36% (of 21 mil or 285714.286 btc/year). If we currently have 17 mil maximum available supply (17=21-4), then 17000000/285714.286=59.5 years. So...check your maths, buddy. You assumed % of the current when I talked about a linear loss of certain # of btc per year (which I indicated as % of the overall bitcoin issuance for simplicity). I thought that Hisslyness's post already pretty clearly pointed out the maths in terms of taking more than 1,200 years to get down to less than 1 BTC.. so the BTC does not disappear, even if you presume a constant loss rate of 1.36% per year (which is also not realistic)... and you seem crazy to suggest that all of a sudden bitcoin's supply would go to zero when we should be working with your presumption of a 1.36% loss rate.. which may or may not be realistic... which also was addressed by hissleyness's post. My point was that BIP-42 was already implemented in 2016, which is 249 years before an additional "cycle" would have begun.
Absolutely nothing is being said about much earlier (maybe in 60 years) possible event depicted above.
Sure, maybe the rate of the loss is lower (or higher?) now.
We just don't know. Maybe we should find out?
Maybe you are on some kind of a weird mental exercise that really is not seeming to be very well connected to real facts or even realistic speculations regarding what is happening and what might happen down the road, if things were to remain constant based on the current speculated BTC loss rate. Checks what day it is...
FUCK YOU JJG!
Oh thank you so muchie.  I was starting to think that I was going to lose my day.  @JJG...sooner or later...developers would have to address concerns like mine. Some others state that the loss rate is maybe even 4% a year now, which is kind of high ( https://blog.trezor.io/what-happens-to-lost-bitcoin-71eb5a80cc74). I think that it is inevitable that some solution would be advanced (once we find out the actual rate of loss). Could some solutions cause a fork? Hopefully not, but we shall see. However I see most of bitcoiners solidly supporting the idea of no more than 21 mil btc, but maybe not the idea of a constant decrease in that number (or what is actually available). To me, personally, the idea of supply shriveling to a few bitcoins and then dealing with fractions of satoshi to buy houses sounds positively Kafkaesque. EDIT: btw, that hisslyness post you fondly refer to does not 'work' if we lose a set number of bitcoins per year (around 286K or 1.36% of the whole supply). He actually made a distinction between 75 years (in his calculation) counting as a fixed number lost/year OR 1231 years if a fixed % of current supply is lost for a year. I was talking about the former, but it flew over your head somehow. Sometimes you just need to read stuff more carefully. |
|
|
|
I found this story fascinating: Apparently, there was a 'bug" (or rather technically undefined area) in the original bitcoin code that would produce ANOTHER 21 mil btc starting in the year 256 from the get-go. The "bug" was eradicated in BIP-42, which was done post-Satoshi. Without BIP-42, rewards of 50BTC would restart in 256 years, then halvings would continue again (from 50btc/reward to down). A bit of 'conspiracy' theory on my side, but how do we know that this was not the Satoshi's intent? I keep reading about 4 mil 'lost" already in just 14 years. What if Satoshi surmised that this loss in 256 years (with issuance stopping by year 2140) would bring available bitcoin numbers too low and actually designed the "bug" to revitalize bitcoin about a century after. Interesting, but would not affect things in our lifespan, perhaps. See the discussion of BIP-42 here: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4r878s/in_case_you_missed_it_two_years_ago_bip_42_is/You have a relatively creative imagination, yet what you are describing could not have been Satoshi's intent. It does not make any sense to start the issuing of blockrewards over again at 50 coins per ever 10 minutes... that would really fuck up incentives and overall value... so that's a bug.. not a "hidden - true intention" of satoshi. Perhaps it was not his intent, albeit we would never know, I assume, but, then, how to deal with bitcoin "evaporation"? We, as a humanity, seem to have lost about 20% of ALL bitcoins that would ever be in a short 14 years. I know that people dismiss it and say that the rest are just getting more valuable. True, but only in a short time. However, think about it long term: a complete loss is inevitable within relatively short historical time frames. So far, we were losing btc at a 1.36% 0.286% (of the total supply) a year. With the same rate of loss going forward, it would be 59.5 350 years until all btc is lost. If the loss would decrease by a factor of 10, then it is 595 3500 years. I don't have any problem with yor starting out by saying that maybe 20% of the Bitcoin have been lost or that maybe the loss rate is more than 1% per year, but even if we go by that math, losing 1% per year does not mean that the bitcoin supply is going to zero. you must not know maths. You can continue to lose 1% per year and the number will never go to zero.. it just gets smaller and smaller and smaller, but it does not go to zero... even if we were to assume 1.5% instead of 1% per year. In other words, the whole world economy could run on 1 BTC. or 1 Satoshi. .. just divide the units in order to allow it to be more liquid (able to be spread out).. yes we might have to go to sub-satoshis, so what does that mean? Sucks to be a hodler? I think not. Bitcoin is not broken due to its fixed and even shrinking supply... so there is no reason to fix it, and there would have been no reason for satoshi to put in such a dumb, illogical and inconsistent fix that started to issue more bitcoin supply, even though no coiners and low coiners frequently whine about such issues - partly based on their having had not sufficiently/adequately stacked up sats at earlier dates (and lower prices). I find it amusing that the original code of Satoshi had in it a "revitalization" of bitcoin by a new issuance cycle after 256 years.
As 256 is < than 350 (my original number), but > than 59.5 there might would still be some non-zero btc remain when the new "cycle' would supposedly start, according to the original code, therefore, bitcoin never 'evaporates' fully and instead, revitalizes. If the rate of loss remains at 1.36% a year, all bitcoin evaporates before even the original Satoshi's solution (or omission/caveat) can work.
This is so dumb that I am not even going to talk about it.  There could be another solution (but I like Satoshi's better):
1. Change to the address system so everybody has to send their btc every, say, 50 100 years.
2. From that, surmise the actual "losses" and make a small random seepage of new btc, so total number never exceeds 21 mil. Not sure how to do it in code.
Still presuming that bitcoin's fix supply - and shrinking supply is a problem. TL;DR All bitcoin will eventually "evaporate" according to the current code and historical human behavior.
Not true. You have bad maths... perhaps bad sciences, too?BIP-42 might have been detrimental to the future (hundreds of years from now).
What an imagination you have (a good thing?) EDIT: the math is even worse: 1.36% loss a year, see correction. We would need to know the average loss per year pretty soon, maybe in the next couple of decades.
Not as urgent of a problem as you are making it out to be. Maybe you and Philip need to team up? Remember that Philip thinks that the mining reward crises is coming within the next few decades, too... perhaps in the 2056 time frame.. so surely bitcoin is broken, right? Whatever solutions I wrote in-I don't care about them, just a small suggestion, it could be something else, but the eventual "evaporation" problem is real and cannot be dismissed easily, and even mathematically as long as the loss is material and there is no add-ons after 2140.
Wow!!!!!  You are really going to town in terms of describing this matter as "urgent." There must be some merit to your claims, no? #askingforafriendI thought that my original post clearly said that it is 1.36 % of the original supply of 21 mil, but let me reiterate the numbers; Assuming 21 mil supply, apparently lost 4 mil in 14 years, therefore 4/21=0.19; 0.19/14=0.0136=1.36% (of 21 mil or 285714.286 btc/year). If we currently have 17 mil maximum available supply (17=21-4), then 17000000/285714.286=59.5 years. So...check your maths, buddy. You assumed % of the current when I talked about a linear loss of certain # of btc per year (which I indicated as % of the overall bitcoin issuance for simplicity). My point was that BIP-42 was already implemented in 2016, which is 249 years before an additional "cycle" would have begun. Absolutely nothing is being said about much earlier (maybe in 60 years) possible event depicted above. Sure, maybe the rate of the loss is lower (or higher?) now. We just don't know. Maybe we should find out? |
|
|
|
I found this story fascinating: Apparently, there was a 'bug" (or rather technically undefined area) in the original bitcoin code that would produce ANOTHER 21 mil btc starting in the year 256 from the get-go. The "bug" was eradicated in BIP-42, which was done post-Satoshi. Without BIP-42, rewards of 50BTC would restart in 256 years, then halvings would continue again (from 50btc/reward to down). A bit of 'conspiracy' theory on my side, but how do we know that this was not the Satoshi's intent? I keep reading about 4 mil 'lost" already in just 14 years. What if Satoshi surmised that this loss in 256 years (with issuance stopping by year 2140) would bring available bitcoin numbers too low and actually designed the "bug" to revitalize bitcoin about a century after. Interesting, but would not affect things in our lifespan, perhaps. See the discussion of BIP-42 here: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4r878s/in_case_you_missed_it_two_years_ago_bip_42_is/You have a relatively creative imagination, yet what you are describing could not have been Satoshi's intent. It does not make any sense to start the issuing of blockrewards over again at 50 coins per ever 10 minutes... that would really fuck up incentives and overall value... so that's a bug.. not a "hidden - true intention" of satoshi. Perhaps it was not his intent, albeit we would never know, I assume, but, then, how to deal with bitcoin "evaporation"? We, as a humanity, seem to have lost about 20% of ALL bitcoins that would ever be in a short 14 years. I know that people dismiss it and say that the rest are just getting more valuable. True, but only in a short time. However, think about it long term: a complete loss is inevitable within relatively short historical time frames. So far, we were losing btc at a 1.36% 0.286% (of the total supply) a year. With the same rate of loss going forward, it would be 59.5 350 years until all btc is lost. If the loss would decrease by a factor of 10, then it is 595 3500 years. I find it amusing that the original code of Satoshi had in it a "revitalization" of bitcoin by a new issuance cycle after 256 years. As 256 is < than 350 (my original number), but > than 59.5 there might would still be some non-zero btc remain when the new "cycle' would supposedly start, according to the original code, therefore, bitcoin never 'evaporates' fully and instead, revitalizes. If the rate of loss remains at 1.36% a year, all bitcoin evaporates before even the original Satoshi's solution (or omission/caveat) can work. There could be another solution (but I like Satoshi's better): 1. Change to the address system so everybody has to send their btc every, say, 50 100 years. 2. From that, surmise the actual "losses" and make a small random seepage of new btc, so total number never exceeds 21 mil. Not sure how to do it in code. TL;DR All bitcoin will eventually "evaporate" according to the current code and historical human behavior. BIP-42 might have been detrimental to the future (hundreds of years from now). EDIT: the math is even worse: 1.36% loss a year, see correction. We would need to know the average loss per year pretty soon, maybe in the next couple of decades. <snip> Regardless, if the situation that you describe ever happens, there will be future BIPs that will take care of it, in a carefully planned and controlled manner, respecting the consensus rules, as has happened in the past. After 14+ years of near-perfect, proven performance, I do not fear the scenario you describe. The code will adapt as needed and when needed. Well, if BIP-42 took care of a problem that would not have occurred until 256-7 (in 2016)=249 year from 2016, then why not determine how much is actually lost and the rate of the current loss (which could very well be a fraction of 1.36%/year), maybe each 10 years going forward? Knowing this parameter, you would project when all would be lost and then count backwards and start putting in those "future BIPs" you are talking about. It's very well may be that this needs to be done rather soon (maybe 10-20 years). |
|
|
|
I found this story fascinating: Apparently, there was a 'bug" (or rather technically undefined area) in the original bitcoin code that would produce ANOTHER 21 mil btc starting in the year 256 from the get-go. The "bug" was eradicated in BIP-42, which was done post-Satoshi. Without BIP-42, rewards of 50BTC would restart in 256 years, then halvings would continue again (from 50btc/reward to down). A bit of 'conspiracy' theory on my side, but how do we know that this was not the Satoshi's intent? I keep reading about 4 mil 'lost" already in just 14 years. What if Satoshi surmised that this loss in 256 years (with issuance stopping by year 2140) would bring available bitcoin numbers too low and actually designed the "bug" to revitalize bitcoin about a century after. Interesting, but would not affect things in our lifespan, perhaps. See the discussion of BIP-42 here: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4r878s/in_case_you_missed_it_two_years_ago_bip_42_is/You have a relatively creative imagination, yet what you are describing could not have been Satoshi's intent. It does not make any sense to start the issuing of blockrewards over again at 50 coins per ever 10 minutes... that would really fuck up incentives and overall value... so that's a bug.. not a "hidden - true intention" of satoshi. Perhaps it was not his intent, albeit we would never know, I assume, but, then, how to deal with bitcoin "evaporation"? We, as a humanity, seem to have lost about 20% of ALL bitcoins that would ever be in a short 14 years. I know that people dismiss it and say that the rest are just getting more valuable. True, but only in a short time. However, think about it long term: a complete loss is inevitable within relatively short historical time frames. So far, we were losing btc at a 1.36% 0.286% (of the total supply) a year. With the same rate of loss going forward, it would be 59.5 350 years until all btc is lost. If the loss would decrease by a factor of 10, then it is 595 3500 years. I find it amusing that the original code of Satoshi had in it a "revitalization" of bitcoin by a new issuance cycle after 256 years. As 256 is < than 350 (my original number), but > than 59.5 there might would still be some non-zero btc remain when the new "cycle' would supposedly start, according to the original code, therefore, bitcoin never 'evaporates' fully and instead, revitalizes. If the rate of loss remains at 1.36% a year, all bitcoin evaporates before even the original Satoshi's solution (or omission/caveat) can work. There could be another solution (but I like Satoshi's better): 1. Change to the address system so everybody has to send their btc every, say, 50 100 years. 2. From that, surmise the actual "losses" and make a small random seepage of new btc, so total number never exceeds 21 mil. Not sure how to do it in code. TL;DR All bitcoin will eventually "evaporate" according to the current code and historical human behavior. BIP-42 might have been detrimental to the future (hundreds of years from now). EDIT: the math is even worse: 1.36% loss a year, see correction. We would need to know the average loss per year pretty soon, maybe in the next couple of decades. Be reminded of this quote: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=198.msg1647#msg1647Your solution to a problem, that very well may or may not happen, will be more of a detriment to the Bitcoin ecosystem. Forcing people to act a certain way in order to keep participating?.. where to next? Changing the rules mid game is the reason why we are in this situation. Dollar back by faith not gold, money printer go brrr! de-valuation of your money and time, etc etc. I have to strongly disagree with you that bitcoin will eventually "evaporate". If we humans are so dumb to "lose access" to every single bitcoin, every single sat, then we have bigger issues to worry about. Historical human behavior, relatively short in the grand scheme of things, has shown, we are exceptionally good at doing what humans do, and that is survive! I wish you were right. However, if we continue to lose 1.36% of all btc a year, then it is a problem, isn't it? Now, that you found that quote, it looks like that the 256 year 'solution' was really an omission from him than intent. I can only think that he wasn't aware of the scope of the problem back in 2010, because the argument that "Lost coins only make everyone else's coins worth slightly more" holds water only until all are lost, which is a finite amount of time, especially if it is that much a year (less than 60 years). Whatever solutions I wrote in-I don't care about them, just a small suggestion, it could be something else, but the eventual "evaporation" problem is real and cannot be dismissed easily, and even mathematically as long as the loss is material and there is no add-ons after 2140. |
|
|
|
I found this story fascinating: Apparently, there was a 'bug" (or rather technically undefined area) in the original bitcoin code that would produce ANOTHER 21 mil btc starting in the year 256 from the get-go. The "bug" was eradicated in BIP-42, which was done post-Satoshi. Without BIP-42, rewards of 50BTC would restart in 256 years, then halvings would continue again (from 50btc/reward to down). A bit of 'conspiracy' theory on my side, but how do we know that this was not the Satoshi's intent? I keep reading about 4 mil 'lost" already in just 14 years. What if Satoshi surmised that this loss in 256 years (with issuance stopping by year 2140) would bring available bitcoin numbers too low and actually designed the "bug" to revitalize bitcoin about a century after. Interesting, but would not affect things in our lifespan, perhaps. See the discussion of BIP-42 here: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4r878s/in_case_you_missed_it_two_years_ago_bip_42_is/You have a relatively creative imagination, yet what you are describing could not have been Satoshi's intent. It does not make any sense to start the issuing of blockrewards over again at 50 coins per ever 10 minutes... that would really fuck up incentives and overall value... so that's a bug.. not a "hidden - true intention" of satoshi. Perhaps it was not his intent, albeit we would never know, I assume, but, then, how to deal with bitcoin "evaporation"? We, as a humanity, seem to have lost about 20% of ALL bitcoins that would ever be in a short 14 years. I know that people dismiss it and say that the rest are just getting more valuable. True, but only in a short time. However, think about it long term: a complete loss is inevitable within relatively short historical time frames. So far, we were losing btc at a 1.36% 0.286% (of the total supply) a year. With the same rate of loss going forward, it would be 59.5 350 years until all btc is lost. If the loss would decrease by a factor of 10, then it is 595 3500 years. I find it amusing that the original code of Satoshi had in it a "revitalization" of bitcoin by a new issuance cycle after 256 years. As 256 is < than 350 (my original number), but > than 59.5 there might would still be some non-zero btc remain when the new "cycle' would supposedly start, according to the original code, therefore, bitcoin never 'evaporates' fully and instead, revitalizes. If the rate of loss remains at 1.36% a year, all bitcoin evaporates before even the original Satoshi's solution (or omission/caveat) can work. There could be another solution (but I like Satoshi's better): 1. Change to the address system so everybody has to send their btc every, say, 50 100 years. 2. From that, surmise the actual "losses" and make a small random seepage of new btc, so total number never exceeds 21 mil. Not sure how to do it in code. TL;DR All bitcoin will eventually "evaporate" according to the current code and historical human behavior. BIP-42 might have been detrimental to the future (hundreds of years from now). EDIT: the math is even worse: 1.36% loss a year, see correction. We would need to know the average loss per year pretty soon, maybe in the next couple of decades. |
|
|
|
I found this story fascinating: Apparently, there was a 'bug" (or rather technically undefined area) in the original bitcoin code that would produce ANOTHER 21 mil btc starting in the year 256 from the get-go. The "bug" was eradicated in BIP-42, which was done post-Satoshi. Without BIP-42, rewards of 50BTC would restart in 256 years, then halvings would continue again (from 50btc/reward to down). A bit of 'conspiracy' theory on my side, but how do we know that this was not the Satoshi's intent? I keep reading about 4 mil 'lost" already in just 14 years. What if Satoshi surmised that this loss in 256 years (with issuance stopping by year 2140) would bring available bitcoin numbers too low and actually designed the "bug" to revitalize bitcoin about a century after. Interesting, but would not affect things in our lifespan, perhaps. See the discussion of BIP-42 here: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4r878s/in_case_you_missed_it_two_years_ago_bip_42_is/ |
|
|
|
We are so back!
Bitcoin to $180,000 minimum within 18 months.
$200k - $300k i guess with a classic soul crushing 50% - 70% drop will land the price nicely under $100k and above last $69k ATH. Imagine buying back at $80k and witness the awe inspiring pump towards the $500k - $1 million range in 2029. <snip of gif> To me, it is risky to assume that 70+% downs will continue. They probably would if we peak at 500K, though. If the large declines continue-a short calculation: assuming that we underscore the prior peak by the same % as in 2022 means the next LOW (after the ATH) would be 55.42K, making the 2024-2025 ATH at 222K (if decline would be 75% vs last of 77%) or 184.7K if the followup decline would be 70% (most likely scenario as we seem to lose about 7% decline "potential" every cycle: 77 vs 84 the last two. TL;DR The peak might be $185-222K, then low of 55-60K. This means buy now and don't sell..ever, apart from when you must (or you are @JJG with a buy/sell excel-driven strategy  ). |
|
|
|
|
Btc is above 50% domination even WITH stables...on the way to 70-80%.
|
|
|
|
|
Took a look and almost spilled my coffee...30.66K?
Where is the choppa???
|
|
|
|
By the way,..... I would like to mention:
Some of you may know that a bit over a week ago, Binance US had stated that it may lose its banking services, so it suggested that either people withdraw their USD or convert them over to USDT.
I converted all mine over to USDT and then re-established my buy/sell orders on Binance US as part of the BTC/USDT pair, and so it was a bit strange that about 3.5 hours ago (calculated from the time of this post), I was waiting for my sell order at $28,900 to fill, and then all of a sudden all of my orders filled from $28,900 all the way up to $129,400... .. and there was some kind of a fat finger or something, and then the price moved back down to $28,800-ish... so I bought back all the BTC that I had sold (plus a little extra), and reset my BTC sell orders and also ended up with some extra USDT out of the deal, too.. .. I don't really want to disclose the amounts, but it surely adds up... and I have not exactly added it up.. I suppose that I could do some math at some point.
I would have had my BTC sell orders (with the USDT pair) up to $150k; however, at the time that I set my orders (maybe a week and a half ago), their system did not allow me to set sell orders higher than $130k... but this fat finger, or whatever it was, had ended up buying bitcoin all the way up to $138k. .. When I just reset my sell orders, it allowed me to set them up to $145k... so usually those kinds of fat fingers do not happen twice, even though sometimes some variation of them can happen when the order books get cleared out like that.. or who knows what caused such a thing?
The market and the orders on Binance US's BTC/USDT pair seem to be working normally now, and it is difficult to know what caused such a spurt in the price.. whether a bug, a fat finger, or just very illiquid markets.. or even manipulation?
What a nice story..congrats..we all need some luck from time to time From prior trading, people were speculating that wicks like this are made to 'show' the traders the ultimate reachable target. If so, 138K sounds plausible for some kind of a peak (not sure if it is the ultimate for this cycle or intermittent). |
|
|
|
straight to Blackrock? haha |
|
|
|
I wonder what kind of stuff members would be doing with btc at $500K (10 tril)?
Make plans? Too early? 30 mo is just 2.5 years.
one step at a time bro a new ATH at 70k next year maybe 100k gets topped next year. oh hats off to buddy 28k! I was actually responding to the post by @OgNasty (without quoting it directly). I can keep up the idea of both 70-100K next year and 500K in 30 mo in my head simultaneously, especially if it would result in the lack of premature selling at 70K, lol. |
|
|
|
|
I wonder what kind of stuff members would be doing with btc at $500K (10 tril)?
Make plans? Too early? 30 mo is just 2.5 years.
|
|
|
|
It needs to be close to 53k or a shit ton of mines will fail.
Most mining gear is in large farms.
A 1 megawatt farm is not that large I am about 200kwatts of power I am a small commercial farm.
Plenty of farms are 5 megawatts and up.
So I see a strong move to near 50k or a disaster for large mines.
I estimate that a large farm now needs a 40k price for next fall to breakeven.
Fall of 2023, I assume. The large difficulty move is perplexing, for sure, although price made a move similar to difficulty in % YTD (50-60%). I saw the price of btc at about 35-40K at the halving, but now, with Blackrock submission, it could be higher as ETF, if approved by the EOY, would front run it. Maybe 50K or even higher, however, if miners would also add into this, they would have troubles around actual halving because the 'flow' would be cut in half. Is it possible that a newer silicon would be ready by then? S20 or something like this with 12-15 J/T. Diff added 34 to 51. in 6 months. efficiency is reaching the bottom or the top s1 2000 watts a th s3 1000 watts a th s5. 500 watts a th s7. 250 watts a th s9. 90 watts a th s15 60 watts a th s17. 33 watts a th s19. 29 watts a th s19 xp. 23 watts a th s21. may only do 17 watts much like a gallon of gas there are limits to what it will do ie no car burning gas get 1000 miles to the gallon a 15 watt or 17 watt miner does not fix price when coins are 3.125 a block. if you hodl fall of of 2024 next fall price will be over 50k or mines will fail bigly this fall mines can survive at 25k. S15 to S17 move was sweet...mined a few..reliable hosts existed back then, but then all of them closed by the Spring of 2022..no mining for me since..and I calculated that buying since then would have been better in profitability (so far). I periodically look at the deals they send me and ask myself...do i know if they would be in business 2-3 years down the road and the answer is: I have no idea.. I was kicked out by no less than 3 hosts (one is a great guy, just stopped hosting for others or altogether, I dunno; another was less reliable, but sent me my miners with a 45-60 days delay; a third just decided to mine only for himself, apparently. I have to qualms, really, as hosting is a "bitch". |
|
|
|
Hey, I wonder if this is w/o stables since CMC is showing 48.4%? ...probably is. |
|
|
|
Some big trader talking about the 'fiscal gap' the thing that will likely drive down Dollar into oblivion possibly: https://youtu.be/53wThFFuOqU?t=464 We can hope for otherwise but a turn around seems unlikely and no indication of any attempt to properly pay off debt or balance fiscal budget is there by any part of politics. A glacier can move is how I view it, its so slow we cant see it but it matters and its not really possible to stop thats the weight of changes most probable imo. BTC has a surprisingly long term underlying movement to it a bit like this, I think they relate. This trader doesnt and he doesnt think 40% inflation is possible, I'd like to inform him its not only possible its most probable but thats my opinion hopefully wrong. BTC has a negative price channel short term and more importantly longer term is challenging now attempting to recover above the 200 week average. If we dont slip below Feb lows, its still positive trend overall. I saw that interview. I think that he is an "entitlement opponent", so to speak. He basically thinks that with the growth of interest rates and entitlement outlays, we would have to either increase taxes 40% or decrease spending 36% in a few decades. However, when boomers hear this 'talk', they have blood coming out of their eyes... and they vote. Why? Because they PAID into Social security and Medicare out of their pockets (and doubly so if you are/were a business owner/LLC guy). Even without a consideration that gov had our money for decades with nothing to show for it as they just spent it at whim, it would take quite a few years to exhaust whatever I literally put in there, so Stan can shove it. |
|
|
|
Blackrock’s (BLK) iShares Bitcoin Trust application to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) this week might stand a better chance than previous attempts by other fund managers thanks to the promise of a “surveillance-sharing agreement” between exchanges. On page 36 of the Nasdaq (where the proposed ETF will be listed) 19b-4 filing, it's stated that to mitigate against market manipulation, Nasdaq will be brought in to enter into a surveillance-sharing agreement with an operator of a spot trading platform for Bitcoin (BTC). https://www.coindesk.com/business/2023/06/16/blackrock-may-have-found-way-to-get-sec-approval-for-spot-bitcoin-etf/------- “If the Blackrock ETF does get approved, the real winner here is going to be $GBTC,” Adam Cochran, a partner at venture capital firm Cinneamhain Ventures, wrote in part of Twitter commentary at the weekend. “Because Blackrock will show the path to conversion, and GBTC’s 40%+ discount will resolve on top of industry growth.” Cochran said that he thought BlackRock’s offering has “good odds” of getting U.S. regulatory approval. “Very different structure than other efforts by a behemoth who doesn’t lose. ‘30 act redeemable trust w/ redemptions (unlike GBTC) + proposed rule change filing. They came to play,” he added. https://cointelegraph.com/news/grayscale-bitcoin-trust-2023-high-blackrock-etf-filing-buyers---- P.S. It is intriguing also what will be the outcome of Greyscale vs SEC case. There are some unconfirmed rumours that Fidelity is also preparing a spot ETF acquiring Greyscale trust. All this looks pretty promising for better times. Who knows, perhaps this is the last chance to buy Bitcoin at these low prices?!? I am all ears, having quite a bit of GBTC in a couple of my IRAs. Somehow, I feel that the last action of Barry in that regard would be to continue screwing us, as he did in the last 2-2.5 years or so. |
|
|
|
It needs to be close to 53k or a shit ton of mines will fail.
Most mining gear is in large farms.
A 1 megawatt farm is not that large I am about 200kwatts of power I am a small commercial farm.
Plenty of farms are 5 megawatts and up.
So I see a strong move to near 50k or a disaster for large mines.
I estimate that a large farm now needs a 40k price for next fall to breakeven.
Fall of 2023, I assume. The large difficulty move is perplexing, for sure, although price made a move similar to difficulty in % YTD (50-60%). I saw the price of btc at about 35-40K at the halving, but now, with Blackrock submission, it could be higher as ETF, if approved by the EOY, would front run it. Maybe 50K or even higher, however, if miners would also add into this, they would have troubles around actual halving because the 'flow' would be cut in half. Is it possible that a newer silicon would be ready by then? S20 or something like this with 12-15 J/T. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
