I don't think you could. That's a pretty tough deal to ask, and even harder to predict than the price of bitcoin cause at the very least we have concrete definitive factors that could play a part in what the price of bitcoin would be in the future. Fees on the other hand are a little more tricky since it all depends on the current congestion rate in the network, which is already something that's hard to predict to begin with unless you get something like the ordinals coming in.

I say you shouldn't worry about trivial matters like that. Reinvest your time and effort into much more important stuff like actually preparing for the foreseeable future bitcoin-wise. Good enough that you're saving your money on a multi-sig wallet, but I would suggest using multiple wallets for different types of expense and transactions.

In terms of investment, yes, you are right but in terms of bitcoin ecosystem, I think it's not a good idea to hold it. I respect the fundamentals of bitcoin, it's ability to help me do transactions without involving 3rd parties and it's ability to improve my privacy. So, since I respect this, I think I should use Bitcoin often. The more often we use it, the more popular it gets and more adopted it becomes.

You are right, that's guaranteed to happen over time if we don't start WW3.

That's what I am saying constantly and I think it will be good if we increase the block size but I remember you said that was pointless but didn't have time to discuss how high block size won't lower fees but I'll be glad if you have time right now to explain that.

Man philipma1957, I'm surprised you say that as if Trezor is the only option that RBF allows, especially with the anti-privacy turn they've taken lately. The point is to leave RBF enabled, in case you have to bump the fee later, but there are many options other than trezor.

Every week blasted nuclear boomb with @philipma1957...
also, @philipma1957 is the another nice guy.
an active person gold man..

In principle, this is actually a very good and, above all, cost-effective idea. But aren't the devices significantly higher in terms of power consumption than a Raspberry, for example? At least if the laptop has a dedicated graphics card, that's a few watts that the laptop needs ...

In my country, unfortunately, the energy costs actually play a (rather huge) role in the profitability calculation ...

Here's one for Phil.

https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/transactions/btc/a4f6a5ce1a46894187f8c0b4c8d0ab99b07d22c931f0db53984075a839f4922c

I need to go to ordiscan.com for that? Immutability right? So in other words, there are no actual proofs of ownership, because I could as well launch my own digscan.com and show people their imaginary "super special" sats.

I congratulate you guys for being so smart, but no complements for miners, they are just eating their own tail like a hungry snake, not realizing it's their own body.

Fees are up around $15 now, I wonder how much this dimwit is willing to donate to the miners before he stops.

I'm sure Phil is enjoying the increased fees

How would they keep it constant when they need to plug in extra exahash of machines?
Let's assume they are responsible for 3%, at 400 exa that's 12exahash, so 40 000 S21, 5kw so 200MW of power, half a nuclear reactor!  
Not even going to go into the details of adding an extra power line for 10MW but 200MW?


200MW! To give you an example the nearby BMW factory has a 45MW peak power consumption, they've made an entire show of how the new cogen engines will provide 10MW of green power.  And here we're talking about 200MW going undiscovered in China!

Meanwhile:
goign to turn positive again
Also, last block:

Some juicy fees for the weekend. Fudgeeeeee!

Protip: The four of you should get a room.

meaning:  You and exp, billy no coiner and exp's grandma.


Sure, I already understand that there could be angels that relate to taxes, yet capital gains would ONLY apply to purchases and sells that are made in the same year, and surely there could be some other matters that relate to taxes and reporting, but launching a new product prior to the new year rather than after the new year gives more options rather than fewer options, and so would justify wanting to launch earlier rather than later (in order to have more options), yet the SEC may likely be somewhat neutral on the calendar year matter, I would think that investing companies would rather give their customers more options rather than fewer options, even though launching in 2023 could well put some clients at a disadvantage if they were planning to ONLY be ready to transition into an ETF after the beginning of the year, but there ended up being a price run up because the product launched in 2023 rather than in 2024 when they were planning to get in.

Yeah, I am writing a lot, and even accounting for some possible tax ramifications of one year versus another, I still don't feel like I have much of any clue why it would be preferable (from Phillip's perspective or from anyone else's except maybe officials merely just wanting to delay as long as feasible) that the Spot ETF product launch in January 2024 as opposed to December 2023.  Edit:  Maybe this part sort-of answered by Philip in the below post.


Sure there could be shenanigan's either way, but it all seems a kind of wash. in the whole scheme of things in terms of potential preferability of whether a Spot ETF is launched later rather than sooner, or January 2024 as opposed to December 2023.

And yeah, I am presuming a pump on the news of an actual BTC Spot ETF approval, but I am not really sure how much of a pump and/or how it might play out and if that would be creating any major buys and sells within the 2023 calendar year (even if the approval were to occur sometimes in December.. yeah, some of the BIGGER players play those kinds of games, but it may or may not work as expected for some of them, even some of the are BIGGER players).

 I don't know the US tax code (and from what I understand, nobody does) but up north, capital gains taxes are paid in the year they are realized.  There could be advantages to waiting until the new year.

That's a good idea. I did not give it a thought, but in my opinion, you should. It is not that the fees are going to touch the sky soon; they are just temporary spikes due to the ordinals and other manipulation by the bad actors of the market, which will be solved soon, but it is best for you and all of us to follow this idea.

Because to setup the lighting network, we do have to pay the current fee, so if we want to avoid that, we should setup one when the fee comes down. Actually, in my opinion, I don't think fees are going to come back at the normal rate anytime because the ordinal problems are increasing day by day. Today I just checked the volume of Ordinals transactions, and it was ATH since its inception.

I was stunned for a moment, but if it keeps increasing, then it will be best for all of us to move to LN nodes before the halving because, after the halving, the price might become double what it is now.

I've been reading posts in this forum from ppl who aren't experts in cryptos or finances but they're asking ppl to buy because the price's going high. They shouldn't spread FOMO but they're doing it because they've already bought their own bitcoin so they're trying to get other ppl to fall in to FOMO.