Thanks for sharing. I thought ghash.io was the only time the pool went above 50%. I got into Bitcoin in late 2013 ao wasn't around when the first two times happened. I guess we can draw the conclusion that the simplest and cheapest way to perform the attack is not to buy or produce enough hashpower, but to create a pool (or few pools pretending to be independent) and attract enough miners. The 51% attacker can then mine an alternate chain to replace the last 20 blocks and include in that chain a transaction which sends the same 100 BTC back to one of their own addresses.
But that new chain would get rejected by the majority of the network, meaning nodes, right? |
|
|
|
Andreas Antonopoulos lost a lot in my eyes by going full leftist in some of his tweets. I've no idea what is he up to now. The certificate was designed for professionals from various industries to get them familiar of what Bitcoin actually is and how it works. It's probably not very useful for anyone wanting to dive much deeper into it. You could probably learn more by experimenting yourself (i.e. playing with testnet) and talking to people on technical boards. SEC chief G.Gensler was a bitcoin lecturer at MIT a few years ago... teaching kids about bitcoin.. years later even gensler cant decide what bitcoin is..
just goes to show how poor even known institutions dont really know what they are talking about
In all fairness, I think he explicitly said that Bitcoin is not a security. He was undecided on other cryptos. |
|
|
|
Not many people were mining with high-tech mining machines when Bitcoin was released (2009, if I'm not mistaken).
Thus, bitcoin was vulnerable to a 51% attack by a big company or an individual with huge resources.
But was there any such attack on Bitcoin around that time?
Why attack something that did not yet have any traction? After the release in 2009 Bitcoin had many vulnerabilities comparing to which 51% attack did not sound all that scary. For example, that one time, in the block 74638, 92 billion bitcoins came into existence, you can read more about that here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=822.0I've never heard of any actual 51% attack on Bitcoin, but at one point (very briefly) a mining pool called ghash.io went above 50% of the total hashpower, but they had no intention of attacking the network and took steps to discourage individual miners from joining their pool. |
|
|
|
After I saw this one that Conor McGregor wants the BMF belt I surely doubted that he can win against Dustin Poirier or Justin Geathje, for sure, even if this is a huge profit for the organization because it is Conor McGregor, but yeah Gaethje doesn't want someone that is on drugs well I guest Justin Gaethje just don't want Conor to be involved anymore but for me, I think if Gaethje and McGregor fight now Justin Gaethje will be victorious,
McGregor will be fighting Chandler next, I believe the fight is already contracted even if there's no date set up yet. It won't be until 2024 as McGregor will have to return to the USADA testing pool, which have six-month testing periods (that could be waived in exceptional circumstances). The BMF belt is retarded. I don't like seeing UFC moving further away from the sport towards some WWE-type entertainment. I'd likely want to see him announce his retirement,
Why though? If he wants to carry on, so be it. I don't subscribe to the opinion that you should quit at your peak or shortly after. Let him retire on his own terms. |
|
|
|
I'm interested in sports betting in particular because the house doesn't have a strictly defined mathematical edge, so it's possible for players to actually have an advantage if the odds are misplaced.
I agree, it would be a hard task to collate reliable data. I would definitely not rely on players' self-reported profitability, as they're often deluded about it, with most being at loss but thinking they're in a "break-even" position.
We could get 100% reliable data from the betting platforms themselves, but obviously they won't share it unless forced by the governments, i.e. in a similar fashion to CFD trading platforms in Europe having to clearly display the percentage of retail investors losing money.
I would guess that there are still enough to make it so like they have enough from both sides, that's the difference. Because while you play for the X team, some people bet on the Y team and you get the return of that, so you are not taking money from the book, you are taking money from the people who bet on the other side of your bet, or at least as much as the house can make it, sometimes they win money and sometimes they lose it. This means on every bet, they are not just purely losing, they lose "some" but not all, and this is why they are so profitable. While you may end up losing all the time (or not) they are never losing all the time, they have a guarantee that people will bet on both sides which would make it better for them. I'm not going to lie, I don't know how risk/operations management works "under the hood" of big betting sites, but I imagine it must be pretty complex. The idea is simple for peer-to-peer betting sites, players bet against each other and the house gets its cut, so they don't care at all who wins or loses. But I don't think it's possible for P2P betting sites to offer fixed odds, I believe they have to be flexible as they don't know what the total pool will be when the bets are closed. That makes them less attractive to players. In terms of non-P2P bookies, for them it's all about trying to figure out accurate odds and also to monitor their exposure to certain events. So when too much money is bet on one side of an event, they'd also be reducing the odds or, in some cases, they'd just lock such bet. |
|
|
|
I just watched the fight on youtube. Looked like a fairly even fight going into round 2, Gaethje jad a little cut on his eye but other then that noone looked dominant. That kick that ended it in round 2 came outta nowhere. I'm sure we will see the trilogy soon for these guys. Poirer IMO will take the 3rd match if Gaethje gives him the rematch.
As expected, really good fight and none of them held back. I feel a bit sorry for Poirier, he spotted that kick and tried to block it but he was a split second too slow. The trilogy would make sense. I don't think any of them want to fight anyone below the top 5. Gaethje might get a title shot next and after that they might go for the 3rd time. He is 39, which is a death sentence for lightweight. What makes me sad, that knowing what kind of person Tony is, he will continue fighting and getting all those strikes to the head, and UFC will keep using his name, even though it was his last fight on the contract.
Was it really his last fight on the contract? I know Derrick Lewis in now free agent, but I can't imagine UFC not offering him a new one. As for Tony, I don't know, he still has a big name and could potentially move to other organisation and even get a better money fighting easier fights. But there's no question that his prime years are now gone. |
|
|
|
I don't make predictions myself, but based on the analysis of one guy, that I personally find somewhat trusted, we should be expecting a peak of at least $75k. But then we have much bolder prediction from Fundstrat saying that we could see BTC in a range of $140k-$180k, but that's based on assumption that the BlaCkRock's BTC spot ETF application will be successful. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how will that pan out. My personal, uneducated guess is we won't break the $100k in the next cycle. Hope I'm wrong though. |
|
|
|
Since the thread title is super misleading and most of people don't seem to care about reading the whole report. Here's the full "Conclusions" part summarising it: Conclusions
Our Perspective provides empirical evidence that at least 38% of all Bitcoin mining activity has migrated to the U.S. and Canada as of the end of 2022. Furthermore, based on data from publicly listed mining companies, we show that the carbon intensity of electricity consumed by publicly listed Bitcoin mining companies of 397 gCO2/kWh is on par with the U.S. grid average. The total carbon emissions caused by the 13 analyzed publicly listed miners in the U.S. alone add up to 7.2 MtCO2 per annum and surpass the annual carbon emissions of the State of Vermont.
The growing transparency on locations and energy sources of large publicly listed Bitcoin miners, which account for one-fourth of the total hashrate, highlights the value of disclosure obligations and may help dismantle unsupported industry claims, improve assumption-based academic models, and point regulators to areas where Bitcoin mining may bring climate co-benefits. Financial incentives of the Bitcoin network may, for instance, subsidize the sealing of orphaned and unplugged wells, and thereby, reduce methane emissions at scale.
The data disclosed by publicly listed miners – and potential future industry-wide disclosure – may help to improve existing mining maps.37 Our results for the U.S. suggest that, for instance, the previously estimated share of total Bitcoin mining activities in Texas of slightly more than 4% (December 2021) has increased to over 15% (December 2022). Furthermore, U.S. and Canadian share has likely increased significantly beyond the 44% previously assumed.
If the Bitcoin mining industry wants to substantiate climate benefit claims, it must understand how established carbon accounting rules function and report in line with common standards. In the past, Bitcoin advocacy groups failed to provide evidence to substantiate renewable energy claims, making it difficult to go beyond applying grid averages when assessing the climate costs of Bitcoin mining.
However, as the industry matures, we expect to see increased reporting quality entailing credible renewable energy claims which would allow for even more detailed analyses.
Given the expected growth of the Bitcoin mining industry in the U.S., more transparency is crucial to quantify climate benefits and costs. Crypto miners have applied to connect to Texas's power grid up to 33 GW, equal to almost a quarter of the current total ERCOT operational capacity. EU regulators have demonstrated proactivity and are ahead in demanding increased transparency through additional ESG disclosure rules in the forthcoming Markets in Crypto-assets (MiCA) framework. Furthermore,
carbon disclosure obligations under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) in the EU, or the upcoming SEC rules will also apply at least to publicly listed miners. We argue that transparency is the vital first step to educate Bitcoin users, and inform the public, regulators and policymakers about the climate-related benefits and costs associated with Bitcoin mining. So no, the BTC mining is not very "green". And I could argue that it's not necessarily green even if the energy used comes from recycled gasses etc, but that's a different story. |
|
|
|
Jan Błachowicz (1.90)VS Alex Pereira(1.99)
now for this fight, there are 2 things that could have happened in this fight and we could see domination for every single fighter if they stay in engaging with their expertise, for this fight, Jan Blachowicz could be dominant with his wrestling games and sure topple Alex Pereira on his feet he can surely do it, while we all know about Alex Pereira and his stand-up performance with Israel Adesanya he could also topple a dominant stand-up to defeat Blachowicz, for me my pick is Alex Pereira,
Not saying that Pereira doesn't have a chance, but I'd go with Jan on this one. Partly because he's my compatriot, but also because his striking game is very solid, many forget that he fought Adesanya standing for like 3 rounds. But if he's in trouble, he could always take it to the ground. I'm sure Pereira worked hard on his takedown defence, but I don't think he'll be able to stop Jan. Stephen Thompson (1.70) VS Michel Pereira (2.26)
As posted above, this one has been cancelled due to Pereira missing the weight by 3lb. |
|
|
|
There is no free poor country in this world, they depend on big and powerful countries, they are just under an illusion of freedom while getting financial aid and import food/drink/tech from powerful countries and do shit summer jobs in these countries and so on.
What do you mean by "free"? I don't think there's a single self-sufficient country that's not dependent on others, in one way or another, so by that logic no country is free. The entire West is dependent on imports from China, should they just opt to be annexed by it just for the sake of creating ultimate "power"? That's just my opinion but I think there is nothing wrong with joining a strong and powerful country. If you can't do things on your own and don't know how to do and struggle alone, then you need a mentor.
Would you like your family to be absorbed by a bigger and more powerful family (in which you'd have effectively no say). Would you let another man have authority over you, your wife and children if it meant more money and safety? Would that make YOU more or less powerful? Let's not try to paint weakness as a virtue. A mentor is someone who helps you become competent and independent, not someone who tries to take control over you. Would England, Scotland and Wales be powerful on their own? Or does the UK sound better? Even Ireland took English as an official language and changed it's strategy to end poverty in their country.
Are Scotland or Wales powerful at all? They're part of the UK but what power do they each have? Does any of them have any real impact on the decisions in the UK? Both countries decided to keep their own parliaments for some reasons though, unlike England, which doesn't need one as it controls the British one. About half of Scotland wants independence from the UK, but they're still reliant on whether or not the British parliament let them have another referendum on that. Not sure how's the language relevant, but it's not quite like Ireland chose to speak English out of their free will, did they? It was forced on them under the British occupation and they decided to stick to it. On the contrary, much smaller Wales still have their own language and they'd teach it to their children in schools, with English being the second one. |
|
|
|
i miss this site. the site that started all this
The site is still there. Unless you mean the Bitcoin version of it? But now, when this thread got bumped and was showing in my watchlist, I have questions - what happened to Dooglus? He's showing as last active on July 12, 2023 but hasn't posted since 2021. He's not banned, so did he just get fed up with posting? |
|
|
|
Anybody got a take on Donald Cerrone calling out Andrew Tate by saying he would knock the shit out of him? I think Andrew Tate has about 3 inches and 25 pounds on Donald Cerrone. That would be a problem in the boxing ring so I think Tate would take him in a boxing match. MMA though, Cerrone is probably right to think he could kick his ass.
It's just a shit talk. Cerrone knows there's no chance of that happening. Of course he would want that as it'd mean a huge payout, way bigger than any of his UFC fights. But if it was for real, I'd be betting on Tate if it was a kick-boxing/thai-boxing fight and on Cerrone if it was MMA. That is a strange decision, as Pereira got only 3lb extra. They could make it catchweight fight or cut Pereiras cheque in Thompsons favor.
3 pounds in a welterweight is a lot. It's not just about the advantage of being heavier, but more about not having to massively strain your body to lose that weight. Maybe Thompson did not agree to fight in catchweight, probably he'd still get paid something just for showing up and being ready to fight. Or possibly UFC just wanted to send a message that making weight should be taken seriously. |
|
|
|
Maybe he has nothing to do with being a Crypto Millionaire and something else that you aren't aware of nor the media? He isn't the first millionaire I guess? There are thousands of them in each country and the source of income doesn't matter if it's real estate or Crypto, this sort of thing can only happen if there was a fight between two people or so. RIP, no one really knows what happened except the family who can access his phone.
Not quite, crypto-millionaires are potentially the best targets for criminals. It's way easier to force someone at a gunpoint to transfer their crypto than to transfer their fiat (banks would restrict that + transactions can be reversed or traced to account owners), not to mention transferring wealth from the real estate. Of course, you could "protect" yourself by say storing your seed phrase somewhere safe, but if the bad guys believe you have instant access to $millions worth of coins, you might still end up tortured or killed. Another angle is that many of the crypto millionaires got rich overnight and are simply not used to handling their new situation in terms of security etc |
|
|
|
Nah, he might have used some fat burners, but he said he lost a lot of weight just by not eating. Probably he just wanted to be lighter to not gas out too quickly. But losing a lot of pounds can have its own disadvantages. Firstly, if the weight cut is due to dehydration, then it makes you more prone to getting knocked out (has something to do with the reduction of brain fluid). But if he does drink a lot but just cuts down on food, then obviously he could end up weaker and low on energy. Hope his team know what they're doing. |
|
|
|
It's really convenient that they dropped charges that involves being the government being a beneficiary of the FTX cake. For someone that donated that much amount to the democratic party, he should be very much be prosecuted for that charge but nothing else to do since the charge has already been dropped. If SBF is set free despite his crimes, it would be overall bad for crypto since it just means that anyone can take that as a cue to create a bigger mess in the future.
I wonder what the implications could be for the Dems if that funding was proven to be illicit (i.e. made from the stolen clients' funds). Would they be required to pay it back (or whatever remained out of it)? But it's easier just to drop it and blame it on the Bahamas. Although, with all that money and connections, I don't think it would be a very hard task to either bribe, blackmail, or intimidate Bahamian officials to make them obey SBF or his string pullers. |
|
|
|
My take in this subject matter in what financial stability means is that we are living in a different world now where it is becoming harder and impossible for most people to become financially stable. It's not about poor financial habits anymore. The value of our money is shrinking because the cost of living, goods and services is increasing exponentially. We are budgeting. We are frugal. We are avoiding unnecessary debt because we don't have a choice. Yet, we aren't financially stable but financially scared. We are scared financially. This is why we opt for Bitcoin.
The key to reaching financial stability sooner is to be frugal during the good times, and not only when inflation/cost of living get so bad that you have no other option but to be frugal. But yeah, it's really hard to build up some sort of financial reserve, knowing that there are no saving accounts that would at least have the rates matching inflation. So we have to take investment risks and hope for the best. Back in the day, working hard to save enough money to retire early and live off the interest was a viable option, but seems like that ship has sailed and is not coming back. |
|
|
|
I actually agree with you that he probably wants to stay relevant. That is a big reason why he took this fight so early. Of course he must be feeling confident about his ability going into this fight. But I also think that he wants to make as much money as quickly as possible.
It's not just about wanting to stay relevant or famous just for the sake of it. Careers in professional sports at the top level always have short life-span. And to make a living out of it, you have to earn enough to last you for the rest of your life. As the proverb says, you need to strike while the iron is hot. Pereira has quite a few fights on his record, but I don't think he was getting paid a lot outside of the UFC. So now, when he finally has an opportunity to fight for decent money, he has to grab every chance and cannot afford to just rest for almost a year. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
