|
the bull run starts itself from the year to halving and ends at the ATH
its the market cycle
as for temporary events.. such as speculative FOMO and FUD
the elon drama was in early 2021 not 2020.. and initiated by media announcing the SEC filing. rather than elon first
drama of the start of 2020 was covid
|
|
|
|
How much worth of bitcoin you are holding?  BTC & what is your future plan on next bullrun?a. enough b. ride the waves.. sell high(near ATH 2025), buy low.(near 2026 correction) |
|
|
|
Maybe one thing that I might add is that if the transaction fees are currently coming back down and eating through the 20 sats per vbyte backlog, then we might be able to conclude that whatever was being done in the last 3 months or so in order to keep the fees high might not be sustainable (and maybe costing the attackers too much), and it may well be better to not change anything in any kind of substantial ways rather than to be forced (or rushed) into some kind of a change that is largely being artificially justified by the three month backlog in order to cause people to speculate that something in bitcoin is broken or some urgent change is needed (when it is not)... and so yeah, there might not be as much urgency as some complainers (cough, cough franky1) are trying to spout out about.
observing mempool you will see the fees didnt come down to allow blocks to eat through the 20sat/vb backlog instead the 20sat/vb got purged. then some 16sat/vb added and got purged , then some 20sat/vb added and got purged because the min went upto 21 before new fresh tx added to mempool from 16sat/vb up.. and then purged again back to 20 - fastestFee: 26 sat/vB
- halfHourFee: 25 sat/vB
- hourFee: 25 sat/vB
- economyFee: 25 sat/vB
- minimumFee: 16 sat/vB
- fastestFee: 26 sat/vB
- halfHourFee: 25 sat/vB
- hourFee: 25 sat/vB
- economyFee: 25 sat/vB
- minimumFee: 20 sat/vB
- fastestFee: 24 sat/vB
- halfHourFee: 24 sat/vB
- hourFee: 24 sat/vB
- economyFee: 24 sat/vB
- minimumFee: 16 sat/vB
- fastestFee: 28 sat/vB
- halfHourFee: 26 sat/vB
- hourFee: 25 sat/vB
- economyFee: 25 sat/vB
- minimumFee: 21 sat/vB
you can see that jochen-hoenicke retains tx below 20sat/vb because HIS mempool is set at 550MB instead of standard 300 but by seeing the straight line(unnatural) of the 20-21 colours they are purged by majority which means only jochen-hoenicke is retaining them hence the straight line. where most natural transactions of 300mb mempools are purging cheap fees (if very cheap tx were being added you would see wiggly lines of tx's coming and going as they get relayed in - confirmed out) if you zoom right in on the jochen graph you might see the very rare one pixel change meaning maybe a little amount of cheap tx got into some lucky block. but the overall straight line shows there is no real coming of going of tx of that fee point because they get purged.. not eaten by block the "min" is more of a purge line. |
|
|
|
jeff garzik bought the domain and sirius(theymos) was one of the admins who then took over as head admin garzik passed domain over through c0bra, then theymos after some time The story of how I became head admin is actually pretty boring. Moderators were needed, so I was made a global moderator. Then admins were needed, so I was made an admin. Then over time the other admins slowly lost interest and resigned until I was the only one left. I guess most of the people who were around here to see this have more-or-less left the community now. That's a bit sad.
It's not entirely clear, but for simplicity I usually say that I became head admin at the beginning of 2011, a little over a year after the forum was created.
The forum was originally located at bitcoin.org/smf, then forum.bitcoin.org (hence the redirect), and finally bitcointalk.org. Fun fact: The name "bitcointalk" was invented by Jeff Garzik, and he's the one who bought the domain.
|
|
|
|
i said the YOUR citation in this topic(the wikipedia link and quote) has nothing to do with sybil or bitcoin (this topic) as for the swan website. it just reads as the same BS tricks you do of name spamming in swans case its cantillion.. in your case its nash both of you miss the point of actually understanding the underlying economics of things you both quote swans case is he could simply say fiat is inflation. bitcoin is deflation and not need to name spam X-effect or reverse-X-effect much like you misunderstand many bitcoin economic stuff but just want to throw in some Nashisms |
|
|
|
My understanding (please correct me if I am wrong) is that node operators have the ability to choose the version or Core they run. This allows nodes to decide which changes they wanted to support.
not anymore core made things more "backward compatible" so that it doesnt require user nodes to be network reedy with uptodate ruleset and format knowledge before a network change takes effect. thus users nodes do not even have any consensus effect on if a feature activates or not its now just down to service nodes(economic nodes) of things like exchanges/popular institutional services which want to use these features for mass customers they custodian/accept payment for.. economic nodes which can mandate mining pool nodes to comply or else have blocks rejected. as seen happening in the past.. its a game of follow the leader now if you want your transaction, blockreward seen by x,y,z services.. stay in compliance with the services choice of upgrade If nodes took on this responsibility than developers wouldn't be a centralizing factor and there would be less motivation to manipulate them with money. With a diversified group running the nodes than code manipulation would be less of an issue.
when the choice of protocol direction via node proposal selection is core vs.. core vs.. core.. is there really a choice REKT campaigns have been done if any other brand attempted to propose upgrades, they were relegated to being treated as altcoin options should their proposals activate against the core roadmap Could the Core team make it easier to change the version of Core that a node operator is running? This would help solve the problem.
they already made it easier with "backward compatibility" where user nodes dont even need to upgrade when new core features upgrade.. the users nodes just blind passes the new style data as valid without actually checking. |
|
|
|
If I had $200 worth of bitcoins between 2009 and 2010. So now I'm almost. I would own a thousand dollars. In that case, I would have invested 1000 dollars for 7-800 times. Then I would be a millionaire now.
bitcoin was, at first market in 2010 about $0.10 so if you invested $200 you would have 2000coins = >$85m now so if you invested $500 you would have 5000coins = >$212m now so if you invested $1000 you would have 10,000coins = >$425m now |
|
|
|
Tesla initiated the last Bitcoin bull run? Rubbish.
firstly your rest of post talked about 2020.. the elon drama was 2021 first part of 2020 was the "covid blues" where there was no FOMO hype, and instead reasonable low for that first part of 2020 leading to the halving now to get to the point elon didnt scream bitcoin drama in february 2021.. it was news media that did tesla had to file SEC docs about its purchase of bitcoin in december 2020 news media read it and announced in february 2021 to the masses which sparked the drama.. so media sparked the speculative drama in february 2021 based on a SEC filing about a december 2020 purchase. |
|
|
|
in 2009 each computer mined a block(solo mining, one cpu=one vote) you can look at the first 1000 blocks (jan 9- jan19) so average 100 blocks a day you can look at the next 2016 blocks (upto 3016) (jan19- feb4) is 17 days so average 118 blocks a day and so on and so on then you can look at the "patoshi extranonce pattern" data, or just get extranonce from your own blockchain data to see which blocks got solved in sequences (meaning same computer, progressing one block to next) and you can see how many computers were involved over time via seeing how many different sequences were operating for instance in the first 79 blocks, block 12 and block 65 was out of sequence, suggesting 1 computer mined 77 of the first 79 blocks which was 2 days so 39 blocks a day max mining in first couple days you can then extrapolate more data for other days after it using the patoshi data/extranonce to kind of guess how many different systems were operating in 2009
for instance i just thought of random block 5000.. and looked at the what day it appeared(feb20th) and found first block of that day 4932 and last block of day 5048 (uk time) meaning 116blocks that one day there were 5 separate sequences happening that day(5 computers) where the best sequence solved 89 of the 116 blocks so that random day i picked, had one computer getting 89*50=4450 coin heres a screen shot of part of that days sequences of extranonce(red is blocknumber) to show 5 columns(computers) of different sequences  |
|
|
|
|
your citation has nothing to do with sybil attack nor bitcoin.. its about inflation
bitcoin is deflationary. where a lesser supply per cycle makes elder owners of coin better off
the swan site, tries to sound economic nerdy.. but can simplify itself by just using the word deflation instead of "reverse-cantillon-effect"
sounds like another silly attempt to mention a guys name(cantillon) rather than actually explain anything
and by the way, i have not lived with my parents for decades. im currently travelling around different countries and enjoying freedom. try it
|
|
|
|
|
if you look at the HUNDREDS of millions of dollars the bitcoin core github maintainers have fundraised in recent years.
you should be asking those entitled devs to fund their underlings that help them out
|
|
|
|
[edited out]
whos considerations about ~" solutions"~ help who the most.. poor or elite, mine or yours Of course, you are the greatest franky. I have nothing materially important to say (that i have not already said) in regards to how folks might attempt to prepare themselves for present and/or future transaction fees.. its not about a whos the greatest.. im not here for ass-kissery.. never have been its about you admitting who does it benefit.. poor or elites (which you still dont want to answer properly) its about think for yourself about the crap that you have been taught through social scripts(your over use of certain words, phrases and promotions proves it), who does your preferential mantra benefit the most. im not here for ass-kissery.. never have been who does your recited mantra of other idiots.. benefit the most its about you coming to the realisation that the stuff you want to promote is not even things that benefit you. its an attempt to realise you are shooting yourself in the foot by promoting things that are not aiding your own involvement in bitcoin. its about learning the stuff you promote is not thing that will help out those that want to have their transactions in mempools and relayed to mining pools to get into blocks, instead your mantra you got taught is about evading even being in mempools, evading even being in blocks, evading having own funds on own utxo and instead just sticking with the status quo of if they did try to send or receive transaction they are more likely to just get purged from mempool and never get relayed to mining pools to be added to a block. thus not even a solution to the problems that created annoyances for those that dont want to be purged from the mempool. your preference is not a solution to the annoyances observed in the mempool. its instead evading being observed in mempool in its totality |
|
|
|
same reason why meta decided to go all in with metaverse but failed miserably anyway,
meta failed miserably with the metaverse because they just threw together a gimmick. they didnt go all-in they could have created a proper universe where people could lease VR space to design a VR store that promotes goods which then when bought in VR, a real world product is delivered to peoples real world home. where its like a fully interactive shopping mall and entertainment center where people can VR earn credit via operating as customer service support or sales people and create a circular economy inside metaverse.. instead it just turned into a cartoon character social chat space .. many web3 supposed tech has yet to be discovered/utilised so getting rid of some web2 deadwood may make way for more web3 development yet to be seen |
|
|
|
|
a. asic miners do not have harddrives and do not store blockdata. they just hash a 256bit hash.. so their "cost of storing data" is zero
b. nodes store data but do not mine. and hard drives can store/validate many YEARS of millions of transactions for the cost of only dozens of transaction fee costs.. so the costs is negligable
nodes are computing data, not miners
c. the depletion of coin reward is incentivised by the market price of deflationary economics.
in short its a symbiotic process that self sustains
we have seen a few halving events and bitcoin raises in value each time.. halving events are not the thing to fear but the thing to understand are a benefit of the system. dont get scared thinking depleting coin rewards causes bad things.
miners did not starve/plead poverty when the market was $15k mid-cycle.. and are not pleading poverty now with the price being nearly 3x before the halving this year, nor will be pleading poverty when the next ATH happens next year.
if you are talking about a system where node users get paid for validation/storage.. they already do
by validating the data and being in concert with other nodes, it brings security to peoples funds and via the symbiotic process brings value to their funds. and the increase of value is the reward.
EG other pow networks with less security, less utility have less value
|
|
|
|
|
many businesses have regular events of turn-over, employee churn, removing the dead wood..
when one project finishes that specialises in certain skill, its time to move to the next project that might need a fresh mind.
yes AI makes things easier. people dont need to write 1000's of lines of code. they just type in a few descriptions of the end result they want and AI writes code for them. then they just need to refine/tweak it
google always did turn-over employee's often. if people were great at one project but not productive at the next, google doesnt keep them around forever, and projects dont continually need a full team of developers forever. its a system of get a finalised product and then move to next project, whereby only a few % stick to old project for updates
we are no longer in the era where people stay in the same job for 40 years
|
|
|
|
Carbon is not the commodity, it's carbon credits, so you don't get paid to produce CO2, you get fined for producing!
RIOT(+sister companies) made profit selling its fossil fuel energy to the grid RIOT(+sister companies) made profit selling its carbon credits |
|
|
|
we know that it's best to buy Bitcoin at DIP and Hold or sell it off at any convenient price above the amount we bought it. it's just reasonable to say that you've made your profit after you've successfully sold it at a value that is greater than the amount you bought it regardless of the profit you made. but Robert Kiyosaki, in a podcast suggests that you make your profit at the point you bought Bitcoin and not at the point you sold it regardless of the amount you sold it.
its the difference between those that chant DCA (buy at any price even when its in bull) vs those saying buy the dip buying the dip helps accumulate at the beginning which then yields more potential, sooner DCA just means you slowly accumulate less over time meaning to break even later on, waiting longer |
|
|
|
firstly devs should be self sufficiently funded by doing what all bitcoiners do. invest in holding bitcoin.. and then devs coding bitcoin for bitcoiners benefit to get BITCOIN adoption/utility.. instead of being sponsored to edit bitcoin to be more 'other system friendly' and push people off the network secondly the core maintainers.. are deemed as the governing center of a monetary system. if the political whims of core devs require FIAT outside funding where devs cant even use the system they govern to make their own income. then it shows they are not interested in making bitcoin better for their own interests and befits bitcoiners.. and instead willing to be sellouts for FIAT wallstreet interests (imagine if US treasury didnt want to control the treasury for american citizens benefit. but instead treasurers/politicians relied on yuan and made policy that benefits chinese institutional interests) if devs cannot be self sufficient in a monetary system they have control of, which they change and edit.. they are failing themselves im not suggesting core devs break the supply limit, add more coin and force mining pools to reward core devs . im suggesting core devs invest a sum and then make bitcoin better for bitcoiners and get their investment value to grow due to making bitcoin better for everyone.. instead of making it more annoying, softened, less easier for everyone.. but pushed to only want to operate for the benefit of institutional desires who pay them (imagine CEO-employee's of any company invested in their own company. they would be more incentivised to make that company work better to then cause their investment to grow. instead of asking to be bailed out via other means outside the model) |
|
|
|
but at the same time, there is a trade off currently, when we have some people who are very poor, and if they are buying $10 of bitcoin at a time, I hardly know how they can do that onchain without causing problems for themselves in the future, and if you are proposing BIG blocks to resolve it, that does not seem to be a tradeoff that is going to fly with a lot ofbitcoiners in order to achieve consensus, for reasons that I largely already discussed.
seems rather then reading what i actually talk about you prefer to grab the scripted narrative of the joke that is "bigblocker" the stupid narrative that tries to quash any progress by going to insane extremes and pretending the extremes are whats being proposed yet actual progressive proposals are not extremes.. but instead SCALINGs Ok. Let us just take it for granted that I do not sufficiently understand what you are proposing to change, and I am saying that until any changes are made, each of us should be striving to figure out our own ways of dealing with uncertainties in current fees and future fees. If we cannot be sure about if various changes in the direction that you are suggesting to be "not extremes" yet we cannot take if for granted that such changes are going to happen.. unless you are talking about a variety of changes that have already been coded and are being considered for possible integration. I also would consider this thread to be aimed more at observing what is going on with the mempool rather than ways it could potentially be changed in the future.. although some of us could hang onto (or even continue to create) some of our smaller UTXOs if we consider that in the future there might be economical ways to spend them. my posts are about the mempool stuff and considerations of things that can affect mempool utility to make things better for bitcoiners.. and asking about your suggestions and WHO yours/my suggestions benefit more inregards to access, utility and ease of use of the mempool and onchain usage and of that bloated paragraph all i seen is you want people to avoid bitcoin and instead play on other systems.. doesnt sound like bitcoin adoption to me sounds like bitcoin off-boarding, bitcoin avoidance, bitcoin rejection
just remember to ask yourself if you are not owning funds on your key.. WHO IS? then realise those teaching you that pushing people into other systems sound good.. are the ones that want to own the coins whilst passing off other system balance to people.. knowing those people wont be able to claim bitcoin thus spend down the crap balance to zero and the centralised entity keeps the actual bitcoin
anyways
there are a multitude of ways to get bitcoin fee's down and tx counts up ON THE BITCOIN NETWORK. here ill mention a few
a. a fee formulae that only penalises spammers and bloaters where their formulae score for priority makes them pay more to be accepted into a block and where leaner users not spending hourly get to use cheap base rates that are not multiplied
b. leaner transactions to allow more transactions per block so individually each user pays less whilst more tx per block means pools get nice totals
b1. close the exploits that allow 1tx to take up 4mb
b2. new tx formats that are even shorter(leaner) than standard transactions (yep its possible)
c. uncludge the current 4mb format to not be a 1mb wall and 3mb witness wall. and instead a united 4mb space for better tx count utility
d. then scale blocks to allow even more transactions. so that more users can transact reasonably without being provoked to pay more due to stupid exploits, and bad economic policy made by dev politics that favour off boarding bitcoiners off the network
all things in my previous post quote above help people be on the network and have their transactions not purged from mempool so lets reign this topic back into mempool observations whos considerations about ~" solutions"~ help who the most.. poor or elite, mine or yours and no dont start singing the extremist bandwagon strawmen buzzwords of "bigblocker" scripted chants.. (where you have been around long enough to have learned about bitcoin enough, so should know better by now..) where you pretend to play dumb to not know about bitcoin but strangely know all the scripted chants extremes that try to avoid talking about scaling solutions that will help transaction utility, access, ease of the mempool.. (that are not about "bigblocker" extremes.) just to avoid talking about scaling solutions and instead just want to turn this topic into an advert for other systems far more buggy/insecure.. yep other systems(to want people to leave the bitcoin network) which avoid having transactions seen in mempools or filtered into blocks |
|
|
|
That's a strange title and misguiding one, if the Bitcoin community is a Sybil Attack on Bitcoin then why Bitcoin exist in first place? Bitcoin is Bitcoin because of the community and support it's getting from the community. Without the community and users Bitcoin can't really be a useful thing at all, so it's better to not use such misleading title.
I know that Sybil attacks are of a concern but considering whole community as sybil attack is not right at all. I know that sybil attack is a concern and it was a concern back then also but it's not fair to consider the whole community as sybil attack on Bitcoin.
Its the nature of what a Sybil attack is. Bitcoin only has Sybil protection on a computer network level. On a social level its completely hijacked. Look at frank for example, he can't even think past 2 ever since 2014 traincarswreck keeps popping back on the forum(along with his other alts) trying to start his own social sybil game with his Nash obsession and John Nash IS all these men
SAtosHi Nakamoto, wei dai, nick szabo same person, same nash.
Nash sees "...there is some negative psychology about gold"
he thinks if he disappears for a bit and comes back he can start again.. issue is people remember the idiot and dont want him to start his games again so call him out quick before he starts again and thats how you stop a social sybil.. by recognising it happening quick and telling the idiot he is wasting his time |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
