ok.. this guy is being arrogently ignorant. last time, just for fun you are not buying the ability to watch a number. you are buying a medium of exchange that has many features and benefits that has a cost. that cost is somewhere between $35-$85k right now depending on how available it is for you to get, either o-t-c, market or mining. is a deciding factor of convenience, ability and time it requires to get 1btc for the different methods. EG if you live in kazahkstan you could probably find a way to get it for $37k instead of the market price of $39k EG if you live in germany you wont want to get it from mining at $80k+, so instead prefer the market price of $39k but no where, no place, no way can you get bitcoin for $2 . so the value of bitcoin is not $2 near everyone is willing to sell for atleast $35k. and make profit if they sell for more. its not like there are 2 people rolling 14,000 dice each where by they both get a random number. of meaningless. each. and then agree on a middle. instead its based on acquisition costs. that value between a current value window of $35k-$85k where diffferent regions have different price points. where some can buy it real cheap vs other places where its at a bit of a premium to other methods of acquiring the reason they want it in the first place is a multitude of reasons. the way that its a currency that offers different features that banks dont the way that its a currency that offers different less restrictions than banks do how you can hand it to another owner without needing to explain reasons how you can buy things with it how you can be the sole controller of transfers how it is irreversible how its immutable how it does not rely on government involvement how its deflationary, to hedge against inflation you can treat it like a 'trust' without having to get a solicitor/lawyer to draw up 'trust documents' you can use it like an off-shore tax shelter. store value without having to do any banking shuffling keep it as a pension pot or assign it as inheritance without having to do complex Will's or contracts .. and so on There's nothing false. Redeemable means able to be bought back by the issuer. It doesn't mean able to be traded. If I buy a government bond on the market I didn't redeem that bond. Only the government can do that by paying me the face value of the bond.
here is the thing though.. take zimbabwe.. having a 1trillion Z$ is redeemable for?? nothing now people in zimbabwe dont even use zimbabwe dollar. it broke. its finito in the 1900's a US $10 bank note could buy 75 loaves of bread. i guarantee you if you handed in a $10 bank note they would not redeem it for something that can buy you 75 loaves of bread they have not secured value, they are not liable to you for 75 loaves of bread per $10 bank note all you would get is another more crisp fresh smelling $10 note. which can only buy you the same 4 bread loaf value as today if you hold it for 10 years. i guarantee you, you wont be able to buy more then 3 loaves of bread with it. at best/worse you might decide to accept 1000 copper heavy coins. hoping to sell it for scrap for equivalent of 8 loaves of value(at best) but thats with the hassle of then trying to get someone to convert the scrap metal for value equivalent to loaves of bread, at scrap metal value but government/banks are not securing value or liable to you for the 75 loaf value of the past. nor are they securing or made liable to always give you 4 loaves of bread value for bank notes held today, in the future the serial number of a trillion zimbabwe dollar bank note you admire so much as 'security' is worth not even a square millimetre of a single sheet of toilet paper.. meaning a trillion Zdollar bank note is not even worth wiping your ass with it. yet 1btc (of many) that i got in 2012, which could get me 3loaves of bread, can now get me 15,600 loaves of bread. because deflation is better than inflation. i also used some coin to do trades, to secure funds for pension, some inheritance to nephews, and to pass funds through customs without having to hold a debit card or paper cash on me when travelling.. heck it even paid for the ticket and hotel... i also paid rent with it, bought food with it. furniture and loads of other things, heck a couple evenings a week, when people complain that my words are not grammatically precise, is because of a nice bottle of whiskey paid for in btc |
|
|
|
|
metaverse is simply a replacement of webpages for interactive shopping mall(3d RPG).
retailers would buy 'land' so they can design virtual retail stores that can do more then a real world brick and mortar store can do aesthetically.
obviously having certain retail 'land' in suitable locations can become its own real estate.
EG there can be female fashion, jewellery, perfumes, soaps shopping mall.. and have 100 female centered retailers in one server(gamezone)
and more male centered retailers in a separate zone
its not about buying 'in game' artifacts. its about viewing ingame artifacts that represent real world products, where you can buy the item 'ingame' which translates to a real world product getting delivered to your house.
replace ebay item images which you click on to add to cart, with instead a 3d rendered model that you put in your backpack. and the same applies. you pay for the item seen on the web and the real world good gets delivered.
the whole nft stuff is so that for instance pepsi can render a 3d model of a case of bottles. and t-shirts. and then licence who can sell pepsi official items to certain retailers. whereby the retailers are also ordering real world cases of bottles from pepsi to sell to customers that 'click' on a 3d render and pay for it.
..
yes people can also create their own items to sell.. much like interior designers create displays for retailer and get paid for it.
yes people can also create their own items to sell.. much like any craftsman can create their own wares and products to sell to customers
|
|
|
|
|
ok you love the phrases "number 1" and "security" "liability"
but what is a bank note secured against.
saying a bank note is backed by another bank note is not security. its just a promise to swap crumpled paper for crisp paper 1:1
it doesnt protect against inflation or loss
it especially does not secure your value that in 30 years you can still buy the same amount of bread as now.
heck zimbabwe went through 4 different bank notes and each time within years it lost value very very very quickly
so much so that zimbabwe just gave up on its own currency and now people use Us/euro currency.
the zimbabwe dollar did not secure anything and citizens of zimbabwe did not get compensated for the banking faults
a zimbabwe dollar being backed only by another zimbabwe dollar does not protect the zimbabwe dollar
..
if you expanded it out a bit, that $10 is worth 1000 copper pennies valued at $20 scrap price.
but then bitcoin can be exchanged for an altcoin or other assets
if you expanded out a bit you could say that 7.25 us dollars is secured against minimum wage law. meaning even someone on the lowest paid job will get atleast 7.50 of bank money for their hours labour.
but then you will have to realise that right now:
bitcoins most efficient work per btc is $35k
bitcoins least efficient work per btc is $85k
but here is the thing.
bitcoin is not a random TXID with an output number which has a randomly chosen price of no value.
bitcoins value window is between $35k-$85k as explained before. in multiple ways in different posts
the price sits within the value window.
the value window is the backed value based on the cost.
much like how copper has a acquisition cost. gold has an acquisition cost.
where it varies in price depending on different factors that vary the price within their respective value windows
|
|
|
|
I am not trading it with some pieces of paper but with security that give me the right to recive capital that the security issuers borrowed at security puting on the market. The higher a number on paper the more capital, that is utility value, will I receive at security withdrawal from the market. You must educate yourself how securities work to be able to understand what I am talking about. But here that's not the point given bitcoin is not a security. Bitcoin is literally a number. And I am asking why would I pay an enormous amount of money for it?
a $10 bank note is a security of what??? if you take it to a bank. what do you expect in exchange?? at best they will swap a dirty, tatty crumpled bank note for a crisp bank note. 1:1 if you lose a $10 bank note, a bank wont just re-reimburse you/compensate you for the hole in your pocket. a bank note is no longer backed by gold. if anything it can be considered backed by copper/nickel that puts a $10 bank note at relative exchange of about $20 worth of scrap metal pennies and 5c coins. but the inconvenience of holding such weight and counting coins when doing purchases means people dont like to accept 1000 pennies for a $10 value purchase even if they can scrap the 1000 pennies for $20 later. when loans are taken out. its printing money(from nothing). where the receiver has to pay it back + interest this then causes your $10 bank note to not be worth $10 value. because the moment it circulates. and you receive it as income from work. you are suppose to give $2(20%) of your income to the government in taxes. meaning your instantly at a 20% value loss, only able to buy $8 worth of goods. if you take out a mortgage for $100k your basically going to have to give back $110k on a 2 year loan(5% interest per year) so that $100k is also less than $100k value. because you need to do 130% labour to pay tax(20%) on new income and then pay it off with the remainder income+interest(10%). what do you seriously expect bank notes to secure, what liability is it you are describing that banks have to you. Bitcoin turned from basically nothing into a $38,000-number because people accepted whatever ask the sellers put on the market. I am not accepting it because I am a rational buyer. I am checking what I am buying. That's why I asked the questions.
is not a "whatever ask the seller put" its actually the seller deciding what his costs were and what he can expect to sell for. its where the buyer can look for different ways to obtain bitcoin away from the market and decide if the market price is near value or premium compared to other acquisition methods(otc/mining/scamming) as for your need to explain how YOU see "liability/security" take the Zimbabwean dollar.(1980-2009) it hyper inflated. and the government did not protect it at the 1:1 rate against the US $ in the end people had trillion Z$ worth less than a loaf of bread |
|
|
|
|
the reason why people view things as a medium of exchange is not just an agreement to give it value. its not 'lets pick a random number and agree'
its based on the value before it at the current and previous acquisition that gives it the current value
if it cost me $35k to mine bitcoin(cheapest on planet). then that is my bottomline value. i wont sell at a loss
if it cost me a days labour(say $80min-wage) to collect a rare stone. thats its min value. i wont sell at a loss
is someone else can get the same thing cheaper. so be it let them get it cheaper from that someone else. (early adopter that acquired it for under $35k)
but if majority of active traders all had a minimum above a certain level. then no one would value it for less than the minimum and so thats the minimum anyone can value it at.
some countries like US hobby miners on residential electric prices and no access to wholesale price asics. have a $51k mining value for obtaining bitcoin. but see they can get bitcoin for $39k on a open market. so thats what they do. they buy it for $39k
or they might be lucky to get it from a kazahkstan o-t-c trade privately for $37k. and so they do, they buy it for $37k
but right now no one is willing to sell for just $2, so the bottom value is not $2. its more above the $35k as bottom.
the speculation above the $35k minimum then becomes numerous factors, the need, desire effects. the convenience of acquiring it via this way(market) vs other ways(o-t-c/mining).
then other features are decided on the 'need' such as transferring value without bank middlemen asking questions or putting value limits on transfers.immutable transfer (no chargebacks), sole private key ownership (avoids middlemen asset seizure) and many things that make bitcoin a better currency feature wise to bank notes
which then has the speculative price that can be volatile above the $35k bottomline
EG germany/bermuda wont mine as their costs are $80k plus right now, so they are more then happy to buy for $39k, they are ecstatic, getting a coin at half the cost of mining it.
kazahkstan can mine if for $35k so some dont see $39k as exceptional value. but some see the convenience of just buying in 10 minutes 1btc which would normally take them weeks to mine enough satoshi's to get 1btc for $35k. so convenience makes some still willing to buy for $39k
america are happy to buy too. as their mining costs are over $40k, though some existing US industrial asic farms at $41k cost, think its inconvenient to shut down their asics temporarily to just buy. so they temporarily still mine and hedge the risk by mining to accumulate because they know the price will rise to cover it later.
bitcoins $35k value, $39k price are not just randomly chosen out of thin air.
medium of exchange value is not just suddenly $10bank note is worth 4 loaves of bread.
its calculated by many assumptions. such as a baker taking 45minutes cooking time plus 10 minutes prep labour and 80c of ingredients for 4 loaves. means he wont sell bread for less than a $10 bank note
a baker does not just pick a random price and say, ok ill take this number today. he will take value that meets or exceeds his cost
|
|
|
|
|
to hugeblack: edit the topic creation post to include the update.
..
anyways i knew el salv cared more about wanting sovereignty more than dependence on international loans with tight conditions.
because the IMF is not an 'authority', its power only extends to the conditions of loans.. it has to come to an agreement on loan terms..
infact the IMF cant really refuse to give a loan. as that would send a bad message that the IMF is not a fund to help countries.
el salv, it appears to want to push back and negotiate any future loans to not have clauses/conditions that are too oppressive.
for instance it should be none of the IMF's business to ask a country to start charging fee's on a payment system(chivo) that has nothing to do with the IMF. the IMF doesnt use chivo wallet. didnt create chivo wallet. heck IMF doesnt handle bitcoin or millisats.
EG Russian vodka. Russia can ask to increase the wholesale price of vodka exports and charge extra tax..
so IMF can decide how the SDR is spent and decide its interest rate
but Russia cannot demand Belgium to do anything to Belgium chocolate prices inside Belgium.
so the IMF cant tell a country how to use a non SDR payment system.
imagine if the IMF did start telling countries to charge 1% fee on silly things the IMF didnt control. that is a complete over reach
imagine if your mortgage provider told you to only eat one sandwich a day for 10 years as your only diet to ensure repayment. thats a complete over reach
|
|
|
|
i couldn't really see that transaction tx where this 40,785 was sent out from the exchanges. or i don't know how to look at where that article maybe.
Of course, you can't see that transaction, it's the total number of Bitcoins allegedly sent from crypto exchanges in a given period. The question is how accurate is this data given the number of crypto exchanges and the fact that they do not share such data publicly. In addition, anyone who reads only the first sentence of the article can clearly see that a certain on-chain analytics firm is mentioned (and this is the first time I've heard of it), so it can be concluded that this is just an attempt to promote that firm. 40 000 BTC means nothing in the overall picture because we do not know who the real owners of these coins are, whether there are thousands of individual owners or 50% of that amount belongs to a few whales trying to manipulate the price of BTC. |
|
|
|
|
so to summarise
topic creator says he has a couple questions...
.. explains that he only sees a number, only wants to look at a number, and asks us why he is doing it.
he does not want any answer about other things he can look at or think about or use bitcoin for.
he just wants to see a number and why he should think that staring at a number is worth $39k
he basically wants us to explain his narrow sighted view.
again we explain why bitcoin is not just a number, but he again has no interest in knowing what bitcoin is, he just wants to know why a number is something to look at.
in short.
he is not asking questions. not wanting answers. he just wants to be as pedantic as someone that collects bank notes that have a prefix 'A' in the serial number, not wanting to know how money works or what a bank note can be used for, he just wants to know about why 'A' serial numbers have value, and why staring at a serial number for 16 hours a day brings it value(facepalm)
lets leave him to stare endlessly. and maybe he will get bored one day, and decide he is ready to learn what things can be used for and what actually brings it value beyond his non-blinking gazes
|
|
|
|
|
the way some see it is not just a XXtwh/y for 7tx/s
but also XXtwh/y to produce 328125btc a year which is using math in previous posts.. emitting 19M tonne co2
but gold mining produces only 105822oz a year, emitting about 55M tonne co2
yep 3x less 'units' if a gold ounce was compared to a btc but 3x more co2 for gold
but heres a thing.
gold emits 55Mtonne co2 for production of ~106k units of medium
bitcoin emits 19Mtonne co2 for production of ~328k units of medium
|
|
|
|
|
dont watch the txid.
dont watch a bank note serial number.
you pretend all you can do is look at a number for bitcoin. but thats just as naively as me saying all i can do is look at a bank note serial number.
if you think bitcoin is just a number as you would have to then think a bank note is just a number. you would realise there is more to it in both cases than a number
if all you can see is a txid or a bank note serial number, then you are looking at the wrong thing. so stop looking at it. take your eyes off of it and realise the other things you can do with bitcoin and bank notes.
by the way. banks are not liable to you for $10
if you lose a bank note, a bank wont compensate you
if $10 bank note can buy you 4 loaves of bread, but banks push inflation to only be 2 loaves of bread at retail for $10. the bank will not give you 4 loaves when you surrender $10 to the bank.
the most they will do is give you a crisp $10 in replacement for the rank, sticky, dirty old $10.
they wont even give you 2 compensatory loaves if you show them a retail receipt of 2 loaves for $10
what you are buying is not the txid or the serial number. what you are buying is a unit of measure that can be used to buy/spend/keep/invest.
with a bank note i guarantee you in 20 years time you can buy LESS bread with it. and no bank will compensate you for the missing bread
with bitcoin i guarantee you in 20 years time you can buy MORE bread with it.
as for liability.
with bank notes. the moment you receive $10 income. your suppose to declare 20%($2) of it as tax. meaning your at an instant 20% loss of value
with bank notes. when you receive $10 as a loan. your suppose to pay back $11 in 2 years (5% interest).
you are never going to get 4 loaf value with a bank note. the banks do not owe you anything.
|
|
|
|
|
you can cry about how you just see a bank note serial number and thats the only utility you see, watching the serial number.. forgetting the real utility of bank notes
you can cry about how you just see a share certificate serial number and thats the only utility you see, watching the serial number.. forgetting the real utility of shares
you can cry about how you just see a stock certificate serial number and thats the only utility you see, watching the serial number.. forgetting the real utility of stocks.
..
so the real question is
why are you seeing beyond a bank notes serial number?? and trying to find a bank notes utility. but ignorantly and arrogantly trying too hard to only see a txid and think its the only thing you can do
|
|
|
|
We can make whatever assumptions we want with the supply being locked up by hodlers, but the bigger factor is still the demand side of things. Bulls could all be withdrawing their coins but if not much people are buying, then probably don't expect that much upward movement just yet.
imagine there was 10 coins from 10 sellers in an exchange and $390,000 from 10 buyers in an exchange removing 1 coin does not mean bitcoin is worth 10% more. keeping 10coin and removing $39k does not mean bitcoin is worth 10% less even if there are 9coins deposited. or $351,000 deposited(variate it as you please) on the market people can make an order for: 0.01 for $390.00 0.01 for $390.50 0.01 for $391.00 0.01 for $391.50 .. .. 0.01 for $400.00 where only $8295 is spend to buy only 0.21btc. but has increased the price to $40k/btc it doesnt need to have $400k deposited to match 10 coins to become a $40k/coin price in short. yes 40,000 coins may have exited an exchange. but the market orders are not filled by whole bitcoins or all deposited coins. market order lines are filled with a small subset of coin deposits. bought with a small subset of $ balance order lines are not fixed to only sell whole bitcoins. and the price does not move depending on whole bitcoins or whole matching balance. its not a case that if there are 10 coins and $390k deposited the price must be $39k instead that $390k could be spent to only buy 0.5btc per order(10 people) meaning the price can be $390k spend for 5btc(10x0.5) meaning the price is $78k/btc |
|
|
|
According to data from the US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources published in August 2018, claims that about 1 percent of total global electrical energy consumption is spent mining Bitcoin.
From this valid evidence, we can compare it, indicating an increase in the possibility of 5 percent.
Meanwhile, according to researchers from Cambridge who released data in 2021, electricity consumption to mine Bitcoin reached 121.36 terawatt-hours (TWh) in a year. Well, I think this amount of power usage will be reduced when the price of bitcoin is cheap.
the us senate 2018 report (facepalm) back then s9 was the main asic and hashrate was 36exa average. which equated to 36twh/y but the world was producing 27,000twh/y meaning 0.13% because of more efficient mining. even though the hashrate has increased by 4.8x the electricity has NOT increased by 4.8x its actually 44.8twh/y which is just 1.2x of 2018 numbers. which is still only 0.166% of world production. NO WHERE NEAR 5% |
|
|
|
|
i know you are thinking you are just buying a "number 1" and watching it. but you are not
you are ignoring its utility..
you are acting as if a bank note is just a serial number which you just watch and see the amount of loaves of bread it can buy deminish each year. where all you want to talk about is the serial number vs bread loaf value.
firstly its utility is not just "number 1"
deflationary
unlike bank notes that can print endlessly meaning inflation allows you to buy less bread per $10 bank note per year/decade. bitcoin supply halves every 4 years meaning less NEW coins every 4 years where that equates to deflation which means people would sell more loaves of bread for less coin as time goes on
remittance
you dont need to go to western union and explain why you are sending $38k to your relative in another country, with bitcoin you just make a transaction without having to explain who you are or the other person or the reason for the transfer.
its a currency without the banks. i can buy pizza, rent, a car, and hundreds of thousands of other things without needing to disclose bank details or reasons for payment.
monitoring
unlike bank accounts(like remittance) that need ID and question purpose of transactions. there is also no flagging of spending over 0.3btc(~$10k). you can send as little or as much as you like. no questions asked
security
unlike bank accounts where banks can seize funds, as long as your the only private key holder of the 'number 1' only you can move it. there is no chargeback scamming. no fractional reserve. no 90day refund policy. . once its moved. its moved, end of.
also unlike art, oil,wheat. where you are stuck with flame risking asset, which if it burns its gone.
all you need to store is the private key for security. you can store your private key in multiple safe places, in multiple forms. where as art is a single instance which doesnt like fire.
supply.
unlike gold that was said to have a 190k tonne cap. and now with asteroid mining in near future that cap has evaporated. bitcoin will only have (actually less than) 21million 'number 1'.
yes its not like commodity. (wheat,oil, gold) where its a raw material used to make other products
yes its not like a stock/share(value of company holding)
its an asset. like collectables, currencies.
yes its not an attractive collectable asset like jewellery or art. but here is the thing, its a asset currency. with better utility than fiat currencies
most of the aesthetic features of collectable assets do not convert the aesthetics feature into the market price.
take gold.
if it cost only $2 to mine gold in a back yard using only a spoon and a coffee filter. the market would speculate only at $2-$5
however because it costs over $900 to mine gold, the market speculates between $900-$2k
yes there are many factors that change the 'demand' decision of valuing it nearer the $900 or nearer the $2k speculative price inside the value window. where some of those decision might be based on desire/aesthetics/etc. but the aesthetics dont affect the $900-$2k window.
you have to understand the underlying value window.
bitcoin sits at around $35k-$85k value window today due to the cheapest mining cost vs the most expensive mining cost today.
iceland/kazahkstan($35k) bermuda/german($85k)
lets say in america
hobby miners mining in residential area's have a mining cost of $51k
industrial asic farm mining has a mining cost of $41k
so right now. the speculative price for americans make it more desirable to buy it for $38k today, rather then slowly accumulate it from mining at more cost($41k-$51k)
china, kazahkstan, iceland prefer to mine... germany, japan, europe, america prefer to buy
most of bitcoins volatile PRICE within the value window. is not based on aesthetics. its based on the acquisition value of whats cheapest way to get bitcoin.
where by the reason people want it vary based on its utility,security, features as a asset currency. and where bitcoin is more deflationary than golds 'asset' class investment market.
inshort. when asteroid miners bring tonnes of gold back in 2040, golds value will DROP. because tonnes of extra gold per year is occurring more then earth mining. (earth mining per year 3tonne ->asteroid mining 100tonne per starship load)
yet bitcoins production would be 32x less than todays rate(6.25 -> 0.1953125 per block)
|
|
|
|
|
firstly.
the estimates of total power use in many OTHER reports have been somewhat exaggerated. some have been as high as 188twh/y (15.6twh per month)
so doing simple math..
using current gen asics of 110thash for 3.25kw
and the dec average of 173exa
173,300,000/110*3.25=5.12gw/h=
=44.853tw/year (3.737twh/month)
far lower then the silly estimates using very out dated asics which have said 188twh/y(15.6twh/month) over 4.2x more than reasonable math
but with that said. this coinshares report seems more accurate. as its monthly figure is more resembling the 3.737twh/month simple math i used, rather than other reports estimating 15.6twh/month.
coinshare reports 3.338twh/month.. so i applaud their effort
|
|
|
|
|
imagining bitcoin was $1m/btc in 20 years (1sat = $0.01)
the mining reward was: 0.1953125 ($195,312.50 reward)
lets look at the mining cost per block previously
2018 - 40exa - $35k
2020 - 100exa - $87k (2.5x)
2022 - 184exa - $160k (1.8x)
lets assume a low 2x cost for each 4 year period (for next 5 halving(20 years)),
yep i mean 2x every 4 years not every 2 years (lets keep costs low for example)
starting with 2022 at a 200exa range($174k cost)
2022 - $174k
2026 - $384k
2030 - $696k
2034 - $1.392m
2038 - $2.784m
2042 - $5.568m
this would mean out of the 5.568 COST only 195,312.50 is covered by the reward
$5372 is still needed by the fee's
even if we assume 1sat/byte even in a 4mb space ($2.50/tx in a 250byte lean tx)
thats only 4000000sat (0.04btc($40k)) fee total
so to cover the missing $5.332m of cost would require fee's of 134 sat/byte
meaning an average lean transaction of ~250bytes would be 33579 sat/tx ($335.79/tx)
sorry but no one is going to dare pay that. and blocks wont be willingly full of tx willing to pay that!!
the 'compromise' is either less secure mining per period(lower cost). or more transactions per block(increased combined fee total)
so lets go with a average tx fee of $2.50 on a 250byte lean tx
using the $1m/btc that means each tx needs 250sat(1sat/byte)
but would require either the mining cost to be:
0.04btc for total fee ($40k fee) + $195k reward - 4mb blocks ($235k mining cost(1.35x difficulty now))
0.08btc total fee ($80k fee) + $195k reward - 8mb blocks ($275k mining cost(1.58x difficulty now))
0.16btc total fee ($160k fee) + $195k reward - 16mb blocks ($355k mining cost(2x difficulty now))
meaning in 20 years the hashrate can ONLY BE DOUBLE 'cost' compared to now but also needs blocks to be 16mb just to cover those costs
meaning. 20 years have passed but the mining cost difficulty has only doubled (not good security)
or lets go with the scenario that people are willing to pay upto.. say $10 to transact
blocks would need to be:
0.16btc for total fee ($160k fee) + $195k reward - 4mb blocks ($355k mining cost)
meaning in 20 years the hashrate can only BE double 'cost' as now but without increasing the 4mb limit, but people need to pay $10/tx
0.32btc total fee ($320k fee) + $195k reward - 8mb blocks ($495k mining cost)
meaning in 20 years the hashrate can only BE triple 'cost' as now but with increasing to 8mb limit, and people need to pay $10/tx
again no one will want to pay more then $10 regularly before deciding that its not worth using bitcoin.
after all 'paypal', 'venmo' dont charge $10 a month just to then buy stuff with no internal fee
after all no bank/ western union charges $10 per wire transfer
so no one will feel that $10 is 'value' as a payment network cost of transfer or as a open session peg into a monthly session in another network
so to summarise. if $10/tx is the max people will still think its kinda useful at-a-stretch to use bitcoin in 20 years. it would only allow a 2x of mining cost at current block space in 20 years. (also not very secure for a network after 20 years to only have got 2x more difficult)
or the blockspace will need to increase so that users dont end up paying more, to allow the security difficulty to further multiply by year 20 without costing users more than its appropriate
20 years is a hell of alot of time and we all know portable media 20 years ago was 1.4mb floppies and now its 1tb(1mill x factor)
20 years is a hell of alot of time and we all know internet speeds 20 years ago was 0.5mbs adsl and now its 50mbs(100 x factor)
heck even 10 years ago hard drives were 250gb and adsl was 5mbs.. now both stats are 10x.. yet the transaction count of bitcoin limit has not 10x scaled, because some people that dont want bitcoin to continue use 10/20 year old stats t say why it should not scale now nor for the next 20 years
so them thinking that 4x transaction count in 20 years is bad, is ignoring many things
so them thinking that 2x transaction count in 20 years is bad, is ignoring many things
we need to be in a position of 16mb blocks for a reasonable $2.50 fee/lean tx in 20 years but with only 2x mining cost compared to now
we need to be in a position of 8mb blocks for an at-a-stretch $10 fee/lean tx in 20 years but with only 3x mining cost compared to now
|
|
|
|
no solution option should be to increase the sat/vbyte. It's not a solution, but it will still happen. Simple supply and demand has shown that the fee rate will increase to whatever people want to increase it to, not helped by centralized exchanges and other services paying far higher transaction fees than necessary, and poorly coded wallets and websites suggesting excessively high fees. These periods of higher fees will undoubtedly happen again in the future. Indeed, if we come to a point where it becomes unprofitable for some miners and they drop off the network, then until the next difficulty retarget blocks will be mined more slowly, block space will be at a premium, and fees will increase. no.. fee's do not endlessly increase.. people stop transacting as frequently at first.. and then just find another network to use instead, as you yourself have proven, you dont want to pay a bitcoin fee to transact for daily use, even at $2.. but you are willing to pay it one-off to then go use another network for months.. and the price has not even gone to $40.. yet you have already abandoned using bitcoin and moved to another network (the network you dont like me talking about.hmm) thus proving you would happily abandon bitcoin due to fee's, as you have stated you already have, rather then you play your supposed "just pay more to support miners" theory thus your theory has been debunked BY YOUR OWN ACTIONS yes i know you dont want to scale transaction counts up to allow more transactions without scaling the individual users fee's.. yes i know you dont want more transactions so a cumulative total fee can cover costs, without hindering individuals costs yes i know you instead want to scale individual fee's up to get people to exodus bitcoin for other networks. i know, i know, no need for you to advertise it. i know you think people will just pay more even though you have proven that 'just pay more' game theory does not work in reality. especially in your own use case of you moving to another network
however i also know that YOU know, deep down there is a max people will pay before they give up using bitcoin. so why are you soo entranced on the theory that bitcoin doesnt need to scale transaction count and people will just pay more until they give up using bitcoin.. oh yea we cant talk about your love of other networks as the go to place everyone should use instead. hmmm if fee's are high but not many people are transacting. its not a case of blocks go slower meaning blocks fill up if there are in a few decades only say 100 transactions a block due to high fee's where everyone has moved to other networks(you already have). then even if blocks were 10x slower. all 1000transactions can still fit into 1 block.
the solution is not to pressure fee's higher at the risk of losing peoples desire to use bitcoin.. to then pressure pools to pull out from mining because the fee's cant pay the bills.. that silly game is a way to kill bitcoin, i know its your game.. because you love other networks. but thats not a way to keep bitcoin active and useful and secure. your game now current tx average per block:1419 current fee average per transaction: $2 current mining rate: 190exa then later future wish tx average per block:1419 current fee average per transaction: $3 current mining rate: 170exa then later future wish tx average per block:709 current fee average per transaction: $6 current mining rate: 150exa then later future wish tx average per block:709 current fee average per transaction: $6 current mining rate: 130exa and so on. you want less hashpower, less people using bitcoin and bitcoin appearing alot more expensive to use than fiat wire transfers or other native banking systems. where your favourite altnet is the only game in town that appears better than fiat.. shame on you |
|
|
|
Various nations are looking for ways to regulate the use of cryptocurrency. There are different types of such regulations. Some countries are cracking down on the use and buying of bitcoins in exchange for fiat currency. Some governments are also trying to regulate the taxation and trading of cryptocurrency. Some countries are exploring to regulate the use of cryptocurrency in the form of personal accounts and wallets. Moreover, some countries are even exploring to ban cryptocurrency all together.
But as far as bitcoin is concerned, there is no real regulation on cryptocurrency. This is because it is an entirely digital currency which is based on blockchain technology and is totally decentralised. Hence, it cannot be governed by a central bank or any other financial agency.
I'm not sure how banning cryptocurrencies all together would work, how is that even possible and how would they possibly track such movements? Anyway, I hope we don't learn the hard way, however, the most likely to happen is to have them taxed, most exchanges would be blacklisted, thus, any financial movement would trigger alarm bells, forcing you to declare any earnings that are a result of dealing with cryptocurrencies. by stopping the american based exchanges from offering bitcoin market swaps for fiat. by getting ISP's to monitor traffic for known data packets/websites (like they banned torrent sites on clearnet) but these only affect public services. |
|
|
|
|
point 3 allowed her to make an order active even before it was set in regulation. by simply supplying a notice of proposed regulation along with the order. but that order can only last 120 days or if the proposed regulation gets promulgated(set into law) it can then continue beyond 120 days.
i initially thought it meant just the 120day part was removed (silly me for reading the blog). but then reading the actual bill and its affect its actually removing the ability to implement a order 120days before its in set regulation
the whole point 3 is removed. not just the 120day part. but the ability to make a order active before its rule is even a set regulation..
because now she can only do orders(with consultation) that are already set into regulation or law. meaning only regulations that are actually active regulations.. not proposed.
try reading the point 3. and reading what it is about. its not about transparency of an order. its about implementing an order that is not yet set into regulation...
and the bill is saying remove that clause.
your silly "public announcement"
the fed does not publicly announce it wants to shut down customer X account. it always has and always will secretly tell an exchange to close it.. because the exchange needs to be informed of what they need to do. without breaching privacy of the exchange or customer on the nightly public media news. (news media would get spammed with 1000+ an hour announcements, in your view)
if you think that its about 'publicly announcing' every order to congress/senate for every account suspension. then you really dont know what your talking about. the capital would get nothing done if it had to read every customer suspension order of every MSB (which is your view of how you think things work)
it has nothing to do with public transparency. never has. the exchange still gets informed of an order.
but that order can now (if bill passes) only be an order of a active law/regulation, not a proposed future law/regulation.
the bill removes the ability to make orders of proposed future possible/whimsy stuff not yet in regulation
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
