I would be watching the next epoch to check for similar pattern, this seems to have been repeating recently, strong start, then what looks like a systematic slow down.

Thanks phill for the review.

I have updated the stock and prices.

Exactly how it works, which is how some illegal farms in some countries where they steal power in some remote place, drop a container, and never revisit-it again, leave it there till the police find it, still making some good profit, on other hand, some perfect management that runs a legal farm in EU where the power rate is 20 cents per kWh will not be making any profit.

Current number of post (Including this one): 6945
Rank: Legendary
bech32 address: bc1qqute2ewx7e8s0uglz7e6nnjzxs7pxk50cjx7y4
Merit earned in the last 120 days: 249

Current number of post (Including this one): 6944
Rank: Legendary
bech32 address: bc1qqute2ewx7e8s0uglz7e6nnjzxs7pxk50cjx7y4
Merit earned in the last 120 days: 259

Edit: Updated merit earned.

اعتقد ان تحدير امويقا في محله حتى وان كان الموضوع عبارة عن دعوة قضائية في احدى الولايات الامريكية, الا ان المثل السائد في هده الاسواق هوا buy the rumor, sell the news.

يجب ان نتذكر ان كل الانهيارات تبدا بأمور بسيطة, لا نحتاج الى امر قضائي او كوارث متتالية لانهيار احد المنصات او البنوك, فالخبر مهما كان صغير يمكن ان يكون القشة التي تقسم ظهر البعير, اعتقد انه ليس من الحكمة ان تتوقع ان ردة فعل الاخرين ستكون مشابهة لردت فعلك, فلو تعتقد ان الخبر عادي لو يسبب الهلع وان الجميع سوف يحافضون على هدوء اعصابهم فقط لان الخبر "عادي" فيمكن هما ان تبقى وحدك في المنصة بدون امكانية سحب رصيد ا

يجب علينا ان ندرك عن يقين ان جميع المنصات تماما مثل جميع البنوك تقوم "بتشغيل اموال العملاء" ووضعها في بنوك او مشاريع اخرى لغرض الانتفاع بها, مما يعني ان 99% من الوقت, المنصة او البنك لايمتلك اموال المودعين تحت تصرفه كاملة, ولو حدث مايعرف ب bank run واراد الجميع (او نسبة كبيرة منهم) سحب اموالهم في نفس الوقت فسوف ينهار البنك او المنصة, وهدا الكلام ينطبق على اكبر بنك في العالم تماما مثل ماينطبق على اصغر منصة كريبتو في العالم.

شخصيا الا ارى الحاجة لابقاء اي اموال داخل المنصات الا لغرض بيعها او مبادلتها (تحويل بتكوين الا دولار او العكس), وفور انتهاء العملية يجب سحب الاموال خارج المحفظة, على الاقل هدا ما افعله شخصيا, باستتناء بعض العملات التي يصعب علي امتلاك محافظ لها وتلك العملات لا استتمر فيها بشكل كبير, بل القليل من الدولار في عملات صغيرة لا اتذكر حتى اسمها الا عند الدخول ع portfolio في احد البرامج وهنا قد يكون الاحتفاط بها داخل المنصات أمن نسبيا من الاحتفاظ بها في الخارج, لان تلك العملات الناشئة تتعرض للكثير من التغيرات وتكون ملزم بمتاعبة اخبارها يوميا, اعرف صديق خسر اموال كتيرة في احد العملات لانه تم الانتقال الى بلوكتشين جديد وكان ال bridge مفتوح لمدة 6 اشهر فقط وهوا لم ينتبه لاخبار تلك العملة ليعود بعد سنة تقريبا ويرا عملاته عالقة في البلوكتشين القديم والتي كانت تساوي الكتير في حال كان قد نقلها.

في هده الحالات وضع العملات في المنصة فضل, نظرا لان المنصة ستتكفل بكل تلك التغيرات, ايضا في حال استتمار مبلغ صغير مثلا 10$ فأن العملة للمحفظة سوف يكلفك ربع القيمة او اكثر احيانا فهنا الافضل تركها داخل المنصة, بخلاف ذلك فانا لا ارى اي سبب منطقي لوضع اي اموال في المنصات الا لغرض التداول.

How long have those S17 gears been sitting in ASIC Master's warehouse? also, what measures did ASIC Master take to ensure the same long waits don't happen again? gaining trust is pretty difficult.

I understand you are not the owner nor the salesperson for ASIC Master, and you are doing a great job keeping forum members up to date, I do appreciate all the work you do here.

Sure thing, it's not even up for debate, but this is what's written in the OP


So my question is, how would better management magically makes your mining gears generate more profit? it just seem like he is trying to sell a product of some kind.

The nobody wanted ICOs claim is absurd, it makes think you live in a different world, those ICOs still have a huge market worth tens of billions of dollars, they did not get their value out of thin air, a dozen people wanted them, it is about time to differentiate between what you and a few forum members want vs what many others want.

And I agree, it is naive to let time fix your problems, except that I do not think Ordinals are a problem, which is why I count on time to prove if they are worthy to stay on the blockchain, if you think they cause problems  then thats on you to fix them.

Would be very interesting if the second half of the epoch falls back to nearly 100% hashrate and give us a final increase of 6% or so, many people believe that some large players are doing what's called "hashrate manipulation" although I wouldn't call them that even if they were real, but someone with tons of gears (both BTC and Alts) with limited power rate could be taking this approach, hammer BTC in the one half of the epoch, turn off, move to Alts for the next one.

while it's extremely difficult to find any economical logic behind this, (if alts are more profitable, just mine them and vice versa), also, what is more, an important 6% diff increase of you shut down all the gears that add up the other 6% which are making you millions in profit, and how do you know others will stick to your game and they won't raise diff by say 3% and you would have lost some good money, the numbers don't add for me, something is missing in that theory, but if it keeps repeating, I would be more interesting in dipping into that theory.

Meanwhile, looks like BTC is headed to 30k. , currently it's 0.069$/th, a lot better than it was 2 days ago, at 30k and current diff it's 0.086$ (pretty amazing), at 30k and 12% diff increase it's  0.077$ (still good), at current prices and 12% diff it's 0.062$ not so bad, at today's ago's prices and 12% it's 0.049$ (terrible).

So 0.086$ is an upper bound, and  0.049$ the lower bound, none of the above scenarios can be excluded, all are realistic, and we all know BTC can be at any one of them in 10 days, we could all be happy for a whole epoch making 0.086$ or feeling terrible making  0.049$ with nobody to bail us out.

Ha? good management only ensures smooth operations and low downtime, it doesn't magically increase your profitability, if electricity price vs management were to have scores over 10, it would be 8/10 for electricity rate vs 2/10 for management, you can't say those two are of the same importance, give someone who has a mediocre management skills 1MW at 2 cents kWh, and give someone with 50 years of management the same 1MW for 6 cents, the former will make you more money.

Of course, there is a thin line difference between not-so-perfect and totally useless management.

In theory yes, but there is no other place on the planet that can facilitate the amount of hashrate the U.S has, the U.S is where the money resides,  U.S large miners who now make up nearly 50% of the total hashrate wouldn't be able to collect half the money elsewhere, investors in the U.S have a ton of money to risk which is why large U.S mining companies grow at a very unrealistic rate despite having made worse decisions than any rookie miner (like buying those tens of thousands S19s for $15,000 right at the peak of the cycle)

So not all of the hashrate will be able to move elsewhere if shit hits the fan, moreover, I think the proposed tax is just on the power bill, not the total income, so the companies that pay 5 cents per kWh will have to pay 6.5 cents, is it going to hurt? of course? is it going to be the end of the world for them? no.

روجر انقلب على البتكوين كعملة وليس كفكرة، فهو لايزال يدعم عملة بتكوين كاش.

اما الصورة فصاحب الموضوع فهمها بطريقة خاطئة بالرغم من انها معبرة جدا، خيار مصيري لاموالك، وامامك خياران، الاول هوا وضعها في البنوك والتاني في الكريبتو، اعتقد ان الون مسك قد حسم امره بخصوص هدا الموضوع ولكنه فقط يتسائل ماهو راي الناس الاخرين.

Ya at 6 cents now any gear that is 42w/th or better still makes some profit, also the good thing is BTC went up 25% from yesterday's low of 19.5k, trading now at 24.5k, so not as bad as when we have started this diff epoch, it's almost as good as the previous epoch, so for sure, some miners will go offline (8> cents mining with 45w/th gears and worse are sure thing to shut down or be forced to underclock their gears), new gears are of course still coming online tho, so it's going to be a wild epoch.


I think Kano is confusing the "pace" we all look with the "Next Difficulty Change" which usually is off by a lot, the pace shows how fast/slow blocks are being mined, it's 100% accurate based on how many blocks have been found vs the expected number of blocks at a 10 mins intervals.

Right now, it says



The quote is simply on-chain data translated to a language that the average joe can understand, the first block of this epoch was 780192 it was mined 72 hours and 12 mins ago IF luck was 100% and no hashrate was added/taken out, that would have been enough time to find only 433 so the current block we should be working on would be 780626, but right now we are working on block 780678, so we found 12% more blocks, pretty accurate, whether sustainable or not is the question, also, how likely is it to find 12% blocks in 433 blocks on a scale of probability?

Stompix is correct, YOU want the change, not him, Ordinals are real, they are already in the blockchain, and no change is required to keep them there, on the other hand, a change is needed to ban them, so it's not like we are trying to convince you to let Ordinals in, they are already sitting on the couch, it's the folks who want them out of the house who are desperate for a change in the protocol, so his statement is perfectly stated.

Oh, and as for your little poll thread, please don't take that too seriously, the percentage of Bitcoin users who are going to see it rounded to a whole number will be zero, the only way to find out is to wait a few years and see, if Ordinals stay alive it means enough people wanted them - if they die, it means the opposite, simple free-market capitalism.

That number does not change with low fees either, so not sure what is the point you are trying to make, the only way for transactions to be so cheap is when blocks are not full.


Using and owning/buying are two different things, besides, the same thing will happen when fees go above $1 many people will stop transacting using BTC, same thing for when it hits $2  or any other number, but if it stays at $200 it simply means there are enough people willing to pay that much for a reason.

In reality, BTC is a final settlement protocol, it is like the settlement that happens between central banks ones every quarter of even yearly, final settlements are expensive and slow in nature, fees are low now because on the grand scheme of things nobody uses BTC for payments now, but eventually, it will be a lot more expensive regardless of who are the people using it, but again, BTC does not need you to transact it, just by holding it gives it value, it is like saying Gold is expensive to move, and thus it is useless, ya it is hard to take a bag of Gold to spend it at your local store, easier to use your credit card, that does not take away from the fact that Gold is superior to fiat.

I would not count on BTC on-chain to be usable by average people for daily small payments, fees above 5$ is easily doable without NFTs, it is only a matter of time.

This is one part of the issue here, we don't seem to have a perfect agreement on how blocks should be, you want them to be as empty as possible, while I might want them to be as full as possible, I don't know about you, but sure thing is I could be biased as someone who mines bitcoin for a business, but I am pretty sure I am not alone in this.

Keep in mind that I am on a "moderate level of greed" compared to many other miners, most miners I know hate LN because they think it takes away from the fees which they could have otherwise collected, I have to always defend things like LN in front of most miners and try my best to explain to them that despite taking away from them, it's all done for a greater purpose, and should LN becomes mainstream, blocks will be full again and they would be making even more money.

I also try to tell them that it's best for us as miners that more people actually "BUY" bitcoin and not just transact it,LN users have to buy Bitcoin to start with, so the more users mean more buyers which essentially leads to a greater value, more rewards for miners and more security for everyone else, so basically, the more users the better for everyone, which is why I don't like to dismiss the rights of anyone who wants to use the blockchain in the way they like, you want to build a layer-2 system to allow people to make small transactions? I won't go against it, you want to hold some NFTs on the blockchain? I won't go against it, anything that brings more users/value to the system is going to be good for bitcoin as a whole.


I wouldn't call myself a miner expert, but I have been mining for nearly 7 years now, starting from a small mine at home, to now having a 2MW farm, having managed a few extremely large farms, spoke with folks who own even larger farms, pools' owners, even with mining gears manufacturers, I can tell you that Phil's concern is valid.

It's hard to tell whether we look at short or long-term profit, but I would assume it's something in between, Phill's power deal forces him to always think ahead of the other miners like myself, he gets 50% of whatever he mines using x power (which is limited), and he needs to buy the gears, so he would probably do some medium range maths to decide whether to invest the next 20k in SHA256 or in Scrpyt, the calculation he does now, is probably going to be different from the one he makes 10 months from now when BTC's halving would be 2 months away.

So if his 20k is going to ROI in 3 years with SHA256, he will just go with another algo, regardless of whether or not he thinks that BTC will stay there forever and Doge/LTC could die in 5 years.

I will be forced to follow the same logic that Phill's applies as we move further into more halvings, in fact, I face this dilemma every time I make a new purchase, I spend days with my partner trying to point that cash to the "perfect" algo, we both agree that BTC has more future chances of survival then LTC or Doge, but when it's 2 year ROI vs 8 months ROI for the same amount of power, you will seem to focus more on the short-term than not.

As the rewards shrink in value, the difference between mining BTC and other coins could be even greater than now, to the point where most miners would start looking at short-term as opposed to long-term, and there are only 2 things to stop money from going into those coins and to keep it flowing to secure BTC.

1- Increase rewards (you can't do that with the block rewards, can't play with the max supply) so it MUST come from fees.
2- BTC's fiat value has to grow a lot more than the other coins to offset the ROI difference.

No.2 is more difficult to happen since those coins have a much lower market cap than BTC and it's easier to increase their value than BTC, the good thing however, it's also a lot easier to bring their profitability down since their hashrate is a lot lower than on BTC when translated to value > hashrate.

That could happen as result of people using Bitcoin to buy coffee, not just using NFTs, the blocksize is too small, and takes 10 mins on average to process, any medium sized country using BTC for daily payments will cause the thing you worry about, why assume that only NFT will cause this? By the way nonce when I say "you" I do not refer to you as a single person, just a general statement.


If BTC is worth 200k and fees are at 200$ it simply means that more people are actually using it, there is no need to convince anyone at that point, you need to keep in mind that the 200$ is set by users not by miners, if enough folks pay 200$ fees will be 200$, if they think it is worth it, they will keep paying it, nobody could care less about how sad anyone else for not being able to use the blockchain to pay for their 20$ bill at walmart. If anything, higher fees simply mean people with more value are using the network, does not matter who and for what purpose.

Speaking of what the "majority" is for BTC, it seems like many people are still stuck in the mailing list era or when only 200 folks knew about BTC, back then one could just scroll through the 20 comments and arrive at a conclusion about what he majority wants, as of today, it's extremely difficult to guess.

To me, from what I see and based on my own judgment, the majority of BTC users want to see it grow in value more than anything else, I know if I ask 10 BTC hodlers if they want to BTC at 200k vs no NFT, they will pick 200k BTC,  BTC at 200k or no Segwit,  they will pick 200k BTC,  BTC at 200k and transaction fees at 200$ or free transactions and BTC at 20k, they will again chose the same 200k BTC.

I also think most people who are in BTC don't even know wether they are using a legacy or segwit address, they don't even know how to google/check mempool status or estimate fees, they don't know what full node is, what miners actually do, they probably don't even know what is block size and why sometimes they pay 2$ to send BTC when their friend sent the same amount paying only 50 cents.

So who makes the majority or at least, who represents the majority needed to fork BTC to ban Ordinals?

- Mining pools.
- Exchanges.
- Core devs.
- The rich folks who fund Core devs or/and control the media.

Any major change you want to make to Bitcoin has to get the blessing of those listed above, for certain changes you can bypass some of the above, while some of them are a must for any change.

What you notice in the list is the majority of those folks have a lot at stake, too much to lose and nothing much to win, which is why major changes are hard to happen, most people follow the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" rule, do you want to implement a new change that would add any value to the network without any risks involved? start lobbying and prepare a ton of money and time to hopefully succeed in your campaign, is your proposal going to put the blockchain at 2% risk? forget it.

A change to the protocol that would block Oridnlas is going to be somehow big, you will have a very difficult time trying to convince the above list to do it, unless, strong evidence is presented that shows how Ordinals are going to affect BTC's value negatively, things like "oh, this is not what Satoshi wanted, it's useless data on the blockchain" won't cut it.



 

الفرق بينهم كان ولا زال 2% حسب ماشاهدته مند بداية السقوط, ولكن حتى هدا الانخفاض غير منطقي, لقد اتضح العملة لديها ايضا عملة USDP بنسبة تقريبا 1%, و مايقارب 45% من USDC او 3.1 مليار USDC. اعتقد ماحدث للعملة كان بطيء في عمل البروتوكول والتاخر في التخلص من USDC, تبقا التفاصيل غائبة ولكن مع الوقت سوف يقوم شخص ما بسرد ماحصل تحديدا.

بالنسبة للتحقق من النسب لكل عملة نعم هده المعلومات موجودة على البلوكتشين, يمكن لاي شخص يمتلك الادوات والوقت الكافي من التحقق من كل هده النسب, لذلك يمكن الجزم بأن الارقام الموجودة على الانترنت صحيحة خصوصا ان جميع المصادر تتفق عليها, ولو اقتضا الامر لقام احد بعرض ماهو مخالف من واقع البيانات الموجودة على البلوكتشين.



التحدير فقط بوجود تطوير وانتقال من عملة Sai الى Dai حيت كانت الاولى بحسب ما اذكره تستعمل فقط الايثيريوم, التطوير كان عبارة عن hardfork وتحول كامل للعملة وكان يجب على جميع المستخدمين تحديث برامجهم ونقل اموالهم و و و, اعتقد ان CMC قد نسو ازالته فقط لا غير.