Is there a name for the BTC equivalent of GDP?  What I mean is that if one takes the total BTC transfer volume and subtracts out the portion involved in exchanging monetary assets, one might get an idea of the size of the BTC economy and if one considers the blockchain as a kind of "jurisdiction" securing its monetary regime, one might call this economy its "domestic product".

S
Do you also believe the industrial learning curve is "bullshit" because that's what I built my argument on, not Moore's Law.

I'm not sure what implications you draw from that for the future that differ from my implication that we're entering into an era when industrial learning curve is more likely to dominate capital cost declines in hash rates.  Are you simply saying I shouldn't have mentioned Moore's Law?

The two curves I see are, in order of magnitude of importance:

1) Moore's Law
2) Industrial Learning Curve

Moore's Law capital cost decrease per hash is proportional to inverse exponential with time.
The ILC capital cost decrease per hash is proportional to inverse log units manufactured.

There is good reason to believe (knock on wood) that Moore's Law is coming to an end -- and not just because speed of light constrains the radius of control in CPU clock speeds (as has been the case for almost a decade now).  Hash ASICs are immune to the radius of control problem but not the absolute limit on feature dimensions as vertical features are now the last resort in the 7nm and below fabs.

Yes, I need to add a conditional in the spreadsheet to check for that as it _is_ too pessimistic in that regard now.  It will be interesting to see how much that impacts the Monte Carlo average for mining:

UPDATE

Mean:
0.2
Range:
-0.17 – 1.57

So it is quite a bit better, but still not competitive with buy and hold BTC under the other distributions given to the Monte Carlo sampling.

I extensively modified and expanded a minimalist such spreadsheet from 2017.

I made a video explaining things in some detail, including why the numbers you see are so conservative.

The Monte Carlo search goes through a wide variety of scenarios including some very optimistic ones.  If you don't like the inputs to the model, change them to suit yourself.


Look at what happened from July 2019 to January 2021

I found an old (2017) Buy vs Mine spreadsheet, fleshed it out a bit and populated it with variable ranges in a Monte Carlo add-on (Add-ons -> Causal Scenarios -> Launch).

Here's a video explaining the spreadsheet and rational for the numbers.

https://i.imgur.com/WCIh46a.png

Maybe I have a bad model and/or maybe I have the wrong distributions of uncertainty among the input variables, but it seems to me the easiest and most profitable thing to do is just plow your money into BTC -- by far.

A country the size of China outlawing a market should produce price changes obvious to the most casual observer in markets outside of that country.

Only plausible if coordinated by the CCP as a military takedown of proof of work if not cryptocurrency in general.

Here's the best case for this scenario:

• The CCP already demonstrated they're hostile to cryptocurrency.  
• The timing of Musk's announcement about bitcoin must be considered in light of the difficulties Tesla was having with the CCP prior to that announcement, and their resolution subsequent to that announcement.
• There has been a lot of noise in the financial press about "GPU dumping" from China.  But has anyone noticed the kind of drop in the price of high performance ASIC miners one would expect if Chinese miners were closing up shop?  I have looked and haven't noticed any.

We're still not in "probable" territory though.  Such a coordinated attack by the CCP requires preventing information leaks out of China and there are just too many miners in China and too many ways for information to leak while protecting identities.

If people want to convince themselves that I'm neither Satoshi nor doublespend/Craig, they are free to peruse my twitter feed where I responded to someone who pointed me to this thread.


Careful, Craig.  While it is true that the pseudo-anti-bigots don't have their heads screwed on straight about me, your wording needs to be a bit more careful because too many people don't recognize "blonde" as female as opposed to "blond" as male.  This is a a hot button with east Asian men, and understandably so given all the white-man-asian-woman couples and the high M:F ratio in China.  In fact, the idea you and I discussed was the topic of a 2012 MR article of mine, in which I had to post a comment pointing out this precise difficulty.

A perhaps even more incisive dispatch of the notion that I'm all about hating other races is this post to MR which caused a lot of folks to think of me as a race traitor or something.  And it, in fact, forms the basis of my religious beliefs -- one which is has made me a pariah among white nationalists as well as the mainstream.

So be it.

But be that as it may, my sympathetic posture toward east Asian men doesn't mean I'd use an east Asian male pseudonym.


Well, there is one piece of advice I'd wish you'd executed on... the one about locating away from any zoning. 

Here's the Majority Rights post about dbarter where I described my idea that later became a web interface to dbarter I called "electrum".  The "funny" thing about it is that, IIRC, my motivation for implementing the Electrum system was that some guy was bugging me to get into Bitcoin in the _very_ early days.  Since I didn't understand blockchain tech, I thought I'd resurrect some old circa 2000 code Dan Brumleve had written while we were apartment mates working for HP's "Internet Chapter 2" project.  So even though folks were trying to get me into Bitcoin (and IIRC Nick had responded to me recommending I look into BitGold when I pinged him about the general ideas behind my "Electrum" shortly after the Lehman Bros bankruptcy), rather than take their advice I pursued what apparently became a dead end with Dan's code.  Hence I missed the chance to become wealthy. 

No my "Electrum" had nothing to do with the "Electrum" Bitcoin wallet that came later.  "Electrum" is simply a name that elicits electronic money, in whatever form, as well as having a history in precious metal currency -- which is why the name got reused independently.

PS:  For others who are interested in why I say Craig was in a position to capture the network effect that became YouTube, and may have caught the attention of anarcho-capitalists into jurisdictional arbitrage (such as Satoshi), in 2005 he inherited enough money to pay programmers to set up a video sharing site that included live video and channels for individuals -- and he most decidedly did not politically censor the content.  YouTube got started around the same time and I don't recall what features YouTube offered at around the same time, but I don't think it included live streaming for individual channels and I suspect it was politically censoring content even at that early stage. 

I honestly don't recall that Skype exchange.  If it was circa 2009, then it must have been someone else.  I can believe Satoshi, whoever he is, sent you some BTC due to the fact that you had been breaking ground in social media with video and, were it not for the political attacks that sent you on jurisdictional arbitrage searches, could have captured the network effect that subsequently went to YouTube.  You were "on the radar" for anyone seriously interested in disintermediating the powers that be. 

There is also the possibility that your memory is conflating something I was working on back then called "Electrum", which was a kind of electronic currency based on Dan Brumleve's DBarter (distributed barter) software that won him some sort of award at the Hacker's Conference circa 2000.  But that wasn't a blockchain system and ultimately went nowhere.

It wasn't me, Craig.  Briefly, if I were Satoshi, I would cash out some of my BTC to save Jan's life by getting RG6042 synthesized and treating her in an appropriate jurisdiction.  Although not decisive, there is the fact that two years after Bitcoin was released I asked a naive question here at bitcointalk.org.


Nick follows thousands of people on twitter and I'm on that long list simply because back in 1990 or so he was a prominent supporter of my efforts to privatize orbital launch services.  

 I am rarely in contact with him as he's now "out of my league", so to speak.  It's similar to my relationship to a number of other prominent people:

As your following links to Majority Rights demonstrate, I am a social pariah due to my views and anyone prominent can only be associated with me in a plausibly deniable manner, at most.  I can assure you that I am still impoverished and struggling.

Are there any altcoins that claim immunity to the 51% attack?

ANNIE-ROSE STRASSER et al could get rid of white privilege at the drop of a hat if they really wanted to: Just find some stinking desert (to use a Firesign Theaterism) somewhere and set up a reservation for these privileged whites who don't think they're privileged at all -- who would rather go to a stinking desert with _nothing_* and risk dying of starvation and thirst than spend another microsecond in the society where they are privileged. You'd get rid of millions if not tens of millions of these privileged white males virtually over night. Problem solved.

*You would, of course, have DHS X-Ray them to make sure they hadn't swallowed any diamonds before they crossed into the stinking desert never to return to the land of white privilege.

Thanks for the clarification.  So, as I understand you, Defcon's statement

"our projections of order finalization volume indicated that we would need the community’s full balance in hot storage."

Really didn't state the error he made quite right.

It had nothing to do with which or what kind of storage he was using.

This leaves open the urgent question:

How does one determine whether one's holdings in cryptocurrency XYZ at exchange FooBar are at risk from transaction malleability?

The next question is:

If those holdings are at risk, how does one then most economically ameliorate that risk?

Most everyone knows by now that the substantive threat from transaction malleability is limited to certain kinds of wallets that are in control of exchanges or other sites that hold assets for registered users.  There is some confusion, however, over exactly what to call these wallets, hence there is confusion over how to identify whether a particular asset, held by an exchange, is vulnerable.

I've seen the term "hot storage" used by Defcon, apparently as synonymous with "escrow wallet".  I've also seen the term "shared wallet" used.

Are these different?  if so, how?  Which are vulnerable?

Once we have identified the terminology for vulnerable wallets that are on some exchanges, how do we go about identifying which assets are being held in the vulnerable class of wallets?

Do we then withdraw those assets to private wallets on our own machines for safety (with whatever backup mechanisms are prudent)?

Do we have to get a client for each different type of cryptcurrency that might be in one of these vulnerable wallets?

It is persistence of this kind of confusion that continues to drive BTC prices down.

As altcoins expand and as prices are increasingly offered in terms of cryptocurrencies other than BTC, it would be advantageous to standardize on a slash notation (eg: BTC/LTC) that is the inverse of the underscore notation (eg: LTC_BTC) for the following reasons:

The underscore notation is already in wide use to mean that a price in that symbol is going to be of the first currency expressed in terms of the second currency.

The slash notation is used everywhere else to mean division, so that a price in that symbol is going to be of the denominator currency expressed in terms of the numerator currency.

This will allow sites, such as cryptsy.com to correct their user interfaces, which currently use the slash to mean the same as the underscore, by simply substituting underscore for slash in those user interfaces without changing anything else.  The APIs generally already use the underscore symbol for pair specification on queries to the APIs so there should be no conversion necessary.  However, some APIs output responses to queries using slash where there should be an underscore, according to this proposed standard.  This will require a change in the output standard used which will require a new version of the API be provided.  Among the ways this can perhaps be simplified is an account setting, a change in the subdomain name, a change in the http path or an explicit API version argument.

I've got some altcoins sitting out in their respective blockchains but the mining rates on some of these altcoins is so low that it will take a day or two before it will be confirmed to the level required by the recipient.

Is there any way I can take a mining rig and point it at a particular transaction to speed up confirmation?  Some of these altcoins that have sparse miners have low difficulty, so that's why I'm thinking it might work.

Yes I get

502 Bad Gateway

nginx/1.4.1