[snip] Nope, it's not.  Just to prove that the above is wrong, here's the correlation coefficient and linear regression charted for Price vs Fees from the first day BTC went above $1 to most recent data available. Data drawn from blockchain.info datasets  |
|
|
|
We see that bitcoin's utility as a payment tool has an inverse correlation with bitcoin's market value.
If the market price of BTC goes up, fees for transferring the same value with bitcoin become more expensive.
that is not the whole story. in fact you have forgotten one thing because you are looking at the very recent history. in fact with price rise, fees have gone down in bitcoin terms. for example when price was less than $1 the fees were around 0.1 BTC and as the price went up, the fees went down too. or a couple of years ago fees were fixed at 10k satoshi per transaction. Indeed I used recent sat/byte fees and prices but this is just for the sake of forming an example. If you are to introduce more variables in the equation, then you have to be able to prove a correlation. Fee value vs BTC price has a direct connection based on bitcoin's technology alone. To support the claim that through time fees go down as prices rise, you'd need to look through years of data, see what parts of data are comparable, and account for any connection between the two. Might be true for some periods, might be the opposite for others. And then transaction volumes must also be accounted for etc. etc. That's much more complicated and doesn't take away anything from the key observation here.
For this example I'll set the sat/byte fee as a constant of 193 sats per byte. Amount of money (in monetary value) intended to reach the recipient can be any constant.
This is a very poor approach at it... Let's continue your example but increasing the value a bit more: At a hypothetical price of $9.000 per BTC, the cost of the transaction would be $4.3425. So for 90k$ per BTC we will have 43$ on average. And for 900k$ we will have 430$ on average. By way of example, I'm trying to show that bitcoin's mechanisms makes so there's a direct connection between price and fee-value. Yes, in a real world scenario there are more variables, but what evidence do we have to support that if prices were to go up that much, the value of fees wouldn't follow suit? For the record, I wasn't trying to imply that there would be perfect correlation. But rather to show what bitcoin's fundamental's can lead to for fees. You realize that this extrapolation is pretty lame, even if bitcoin would be worth x amount, people are not going to spend thousands in fees if there is nothing to gain from it.
Excluding a massive FOMO with rising prices when everybody is rushing his coins around there is really no incentive to move your coins at such fees.
And that brings up another problem. Even if the price does go way up and the correlation between price/fee value isn't great, but it's still there. The problem I show in my extrapolation is still very much present. Regardless of BTC price, higher fees act as a disincentive to make transactions. So any transaction of value around the range of the fee becomes prohibitive (i.e. if you have to pay 5$ to transact, you won't want to transact anything near 5$). Arguably, that lowers bitcoin's utility as a payment tool, which is the problem I'm focusing on here. |
|
|
|
|
How do we measure the level of utility that can be derived from using a specific payment method?
For this example let's suppose that the level of utility a payment method can offer is measured as the relationship between monetary value transacted vs. fees paid.
If we apply this to bitcoin, we can see how "efficient" it can be under certain scenarios. Minimum fees/transaction are desired.
For this example I'll set the sat/byte fee as a constant of 193 sats per byte. Amount of money (in monetary value) intended to reach the recipient can be any constant.
For a (very) standard transaction of 250 bytes, one would spend 0.0004825 BTC.
At a hypothetical price of $7.000 per BTC, the cost of the transaction would be $3.3775.
At a hypothetical price of $9.000 per BTC, the cost of the transaction would be $4.3425.
And so on...
We see that bitcoin's utility as a payment tool has an inverse correlation with bitcoin's market value.
If the market price of BTC goes up, fees for transferring the same value with bitcoin become more expensive.
My question is, can this be fixed, especially in a way that doesn't compromise decentralization and bitcoin's immutability?
And should it be fixed in your opinion?
|
|
|
|
|
Destruction of currency is more about economics rather than technology. It's true that a coin could be programmed to do that, but is it really worth to do that beyond a joke?
Economists have mostly focused on the concept of systemic (FIAT) money when discussing destruction of currency. Destroying crypto isn't the same as burning cash, because such transaction is permanent in crypto. But central banks are known to utilize the withdrawal of cash from the economy as a tactic.
However, introducing a measure that would burn money for every transaction would introduce bad disincentives in any economy. Imagine if you knew that by any transaction, some portion of your spent money would burn. Not go to someone else, but burn. That's a strong disincentive to transact, at all. And now bring that in the crypto sphere where there is real currency competition. You not have a coin that no one wants to spend, and can only derive monetary value from it in exchange for any other currency. Well congrats, you got yourself a coin poised to stagnate...
|
|
|
|
Telegram handles can change on a whim. The only part of an account that never changes is the ID. You can get a profile's ID with a client like plus messenger. OP, if you want to make such reports more useful also include IDs. |
|
|
|
Wait, these accounts are not locked down when made "in memoriam"?
Well that seems like a pretty amateur oversight.
The special title and VIP status were given to Bruno's accounts as a one off. It's not part of a bitcointalk policy AFAIK. Most websites don't have a plan set in stone for when a person behind an account dies. Let alone bitcointalk, where most users are pseudonymous and don't connect their IRL self with their forum handle. But my view is that it makes more sense to leave the account untouched after the person's death other than lock it. The deceased might have had plans for the account that were not announced to the admins anyway so why hinder that possibility. |
|
|
|
Not if only one of the accounts have been hacked, and not the others. There is no evidence that Gleb Gamow or YuTü.Co.in are compromised.
Gleb Gamow account has not been compromised. Whether it's a hacker or Bruno himself rising from the dead - they won't have access to that account. How can we be sure about that? Coins were moved out of Bruno's addresses after his mortuary was posted and not long after that someone posts from his main account. If another person that compromised the accounts has access to so much, then it's likely a full compromise and other accounts aren't to be trusted also. I personally secured that account with a strong password so I'm very sure. Oh, I must've missed that. I'd personally trust your word for it. And I assume you're implying here that Gleb wasn't given access to the password? |
|
|
|
Not if only one of the accounts have been hacked, and not the others. There is no evidence that Gleb Gamow or YuTü.Co.in are compromised.
Gleb Gamow account has not been compromised. Whether it's a hacker or Bruno himself rising from the dead - they won't have access to that account. How can we be sure about that? Coins were moved out of Bruno's addresses after his mortuary was posted and not long after that someone posts from his main account. If another person that compromised the accounts has access to so much, then it's likely a full compromise and other accounts aren't to be trusted also. |
|
|
|
|
The address Bruno solicited donations for his 'dying wish' to, was not a new address. For what it's worth. Makes it more likely that at least until this point it was the real Bruno you were dealing with.
If I was a harmed party in this transaction I would show my support in the flags. Either way, the accounts are not to be trusted. Even if Bruno did not lie, then his accounts were compromised. So it's good to tag the accounts IMO.
|
|
|
|
I'm thinking, maybe the accounts could have been compromised not long after hospitalization. Maybe even while Bruno was alive and/or unconscious. Could the fact that the first post praises hospital staff be a clue? Who knows. The Gleb account actually solicited donations to one of his old BTC addys for Bruno's final wish. https://web.archive.org/web/20200502202422/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5236380.0It's weird that the 'final wish' funds hadn't moved until ~2 days before the resurfacing and obituaries had appeared before... And even more weird that it happened after obituaries were posted. See: 1FkHCFv8PN1kerJct3RsQQpMcRoTnx2vWe Now posts in the account claim Bruno is miraculously back, money from his old addresses moves, and the proof presented is old pictures. Hard to be sure for how long a potential compromise could have been on. But also, if Bruno was knowingly dying, wouldn't he have left a wish or at least some instructions for what to do with his coins? I'm thinking that the obituaries are real (because who tf fakes that stuff?). And because the alleged compromiser appears to have access to many personal accounts of Bruno, that it was probably someone that somehow got a hold of his unprotected device(s) after death and had malintent. Perhaps something unpredictable happened during hospitalization and bruno went a little before his time, hence the non-transfer of BTC until today. Too much speculation, but this might be the most baffling thread I've seen here. Bruno's posts were surprising at times, but who would have thought his account could have topped that post-mortem. |
|
|
|
FOR ANYONE THAT WANTS TO VERIFY THIS INDEPENDENTLYIt's possible. Here the things to consider: Here's the "Sharer's list" where Wright's alleged claimed blocks for the "tulip trust" appear: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536/gov.uscourts.flsd.521536.266.1.pdflink found viaYou have to understand why that list was faulty though. Read here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/gnzegk/a_primer_on_craig_wrights_claimed_blocks_tulip/Addresses should be in the above list anyway. Now, to verify the message, you have to verify bitcoin signed messages. It can be done in a trust-based way using online tools. For a fully trust-less way to independently verify the validity of the message and ownership of the addresses with the signed messages, would be to download and install a bitcoin client locally. I can recommend bitcoin core, but there are "lighter" clients also. Here's slightly outdated posts that lists wallets capable of signing and verifying messages: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=990345.0
For what it's worth, my personal view is that this dump looks legit. Signatures validate and they also appear in Wright's "Tulip Trust" list. At least for all of the ones I checked at random. This is a cryptographically verified and trustless way to expose Craig Wright. This is big.
|
|
|
|
Welp, that's interesting. I see that Cobra has spent the last few months at the very least criticizing blockstream, sidechains and the lightning network very heavily. I'm sure he won't be leaving bitcoin but as he says that he will be retiring the application, I suspect that he was sick and tired of being coerced to pick sides all the time. I'm sure many old timers in the bitcoin space would have an equally hard time in his place. I'm not sure however if he'll be able to pass down his anti-blockstream sentiment down the line if he leaves. To be honest, I'm not even sure if Cobra's existing influence was enough to keep block stream from getting a firmer grasp over bitcoin. You can see more of Cobra's thoughts on the matter in an earlier comment he had made. Just food for thought...
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/gb7z17/psa_lightning_network_vulnerability_allowing_to/fp5frnq/?context=3 |
|
|
|
|
These YouTube "journalists" (using that word with a fair bit of generosity here) will usually have other people do the legwork for them when it comes to advanced topics or rabbit holes that go deep.
If you were a famous YouTube persona posting such kind of vids, there'd always be at least one of your fans willing to help. Sometimes it's pure luck that they find a person well versed in the topic and also willing enough to reveal to them information that would otherwise require painstaking research. By the rate those videos are released, there's simply no way he does the research alone anyway.
The YouTuber has the advantage here, because they can claim having an anonymous source or sources they can not disclose. Credibility of information matters very little in a platform like YouTube. Most people watch this type of video for entertainment anyway. The target audience is made obvious by the simple fact that no explicit sources are revealed behind most claims. Contrast that to let's say an academic paper; if a research paper was to be released without detailed references to claims it made, it would have never been published.
However, the fact that this channel in specific is focused on entertainment and doesn't put much weight on journalistic ethic or proper research, leaves the door open to bad things happening. What happened with the video on bitcoin is a great example. It wouldn't be unlikely that someone fed the YouTuber information with malice. It also wouldn't be unlikely that the YouTuber was paid under the table to release such information. We'll never truly know. (Although, seeing how said YouTuber kept defending his video and playing the victim after receiving criticism, the second hypothesis appears more likely). It could be a combination of both though.
Target audience is also kind of the problem. Due to the channel having nothing to do with crypto, many among its fans were introduced to bitcoin with these falsehoods. And while the truth is out there, the lack of overlap between the communities is probably going to make it so the regular viewers of that channel are unlikely to stumble upon what's true. We're never going to know the extent of the damage that was done, as some if not all of these people that weren't aware of bitcoin prior could be indifferent to these details anyway. Not to downplay the potential effect such misinformation could have though. If we let popular channels get overflown with disinfo without any resistance, then bitcoin surely could take a hit.
We might not be able to calculate the potential extent of the damage done by such a misinformation campaign, but it's better to stand against it anyway. And our best bet to counter this type of misinformation is to fight it head to head. Get out of our bubble in bitcointalk.org and r/bitcoin where everyone agrees that the video was trash, and jump on twitter, YouTube and other forums, where people watching such videos are most likely to see it and make simple and coherent, ideally non-technical and well sourced rebuttals.
|
|
|
|
|
Good post OP, thanks for mentioning things in the right order. It's a historic day for bitcoin. Hard to believe this was 10 years ago already.
This pizza exchange was turned into a meme and in my opinion rightly so. It's a story worth telling.
On that note, It's the first time I see the face and hear the voice behind the personality that was laszlo.
Also interesting to see he still works a job as an employee. His no regrets attitude can teach lessons.
|
|
|
|
Some interesting questions. I guess I can get around answering them. Would you say that you are a part of any Clubs, Groups, or indeed Gangs here on Bitcoin talk?
For one, there's certain behaviors I consider admirable. For example, being helpful, analyzing information on bitcointalk, creating tools for the community and more. Things I don't like include unfounded drama, baseless allegations, but also allegations where the complainant isn't the harmed party. It seems that in some cases bitcointalkers are especially passionate about digging up dirt on each other. I had written about this more extensively in my post here. [...] We don't need guidance from an authoritative figure or a high priest to figure out what's right and what's wrong.
What would really help is a change in sentiment. High ranking members of this community find ways to accuse each other, and when so many man hours end up being spent trying to find faults in each other, it ends up just being disappointing. Most saddening part to me, is that members of this forum tend to take sides when a dispute arises, even if it's about the most minuscule things and it's obvious that the accuser tries really hard to build an accusation even though there might have been no harmed parties forming an accusation.
How about, next time there's a spat between two forum members, they get no attention unless evidence is presented? In my very humble opinion, biased reports formed out of spite should result to shunning, with the accuser getting out of trust lists. What's currently happening in my view, is that other members form bandwagons by picking a side, with huge arguments going on and bloated threads over minuscule points related to relatively subjective matters such as ethics, laws etc.
[...]
Aside of that I wouldn't say I have any favorites or least favorites in terms of users, Clubs, Groups, or indeed Gangs etc.. Do you feel that you are unbiased?
In terms of bias towards users of bitcointalk; I'd like to believe that over my last few years here I haven't contributed to any major drama by taking sides. In terms of impartiality in general now... I think the ideal way to judge content on bitcointalk by is to look at the content first and consider its own merits (or faults). Then consider motives and give the least amount of attention to who's producing the content. People with bad trust can be capable of producing high quality content, just like how previously highly trusted users can be implicated in controversial dealings. How would you distribute merits? One per post? Ten merits per post? Some skewered in one direction, but not another?
I think there's a standard set of values that can make posts merit-worthy here. Quality, effort, research, presentation, informativeness, sources and more... Most can go without saying if you're talking to a member of the forum that's been around for years. The more a post ascribes by those values, the more merit it would be worth receiving. As I teased in the OP though, sometimes I think that on-topic replies, albeit short sometimes, can be worthy of some merit points. This category could include (without being limited to the cases mentioned), banter, case-specific and unique memes, short but on-point answers and technical insights that are short but point to the right direction and could be of tremendous help. More so, I consider the impact merit points can have to also have value, so I like to be especially rewarding to new members (and anyone below 1k merits really) who put out their best efforts to make good posts. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
