Bitcoin Forum
November 17, 2018, 02:25:23 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.17.0 [Torrent].
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 ... 257 »
1  Other / Meta / Re: Merit & new rank requirements on: Today at 12:35:12 PM
There are also merit sources receiving only 10 sMerits per month, which isn't exactly helping to solve the problem.
I don't know who are you talking about. I would appreciate you if there was a statement.
I think that applies to the newest group of Merit sources that didn't apply explicitly for that task. Me, for example.

If there are merit sources with 10/months and the average is 185, then they are very unevenly distributed.
Quote
However, currently,
Quote
There are 119 merit sources with a total merit generation of up to 22045 sMerit per 30 days
The avg is- 185 although it depends on spending sMerits. I think most of the merit sources are active and they are spending their sMerits regularly.
That means that if all merit sources were spending all their sMerits we would stand at about 5000 per week. 5000 more are the merits that could be achieved - in theory - if all those that have received sMerits would spend them in the same month.

So 10.000 per week currently is the absolute maximum. I guess it's simply not possible to achieve an amount of significantly more than approximately 2/3 of that value, or 6000-7000 per week. There are always people that don't understand the merit system fully, are too lazy to give merits, do not care about them at all, do have received an uneven number - or go inactive. The last possibility can apply also to merit sources.

So if we want to get back to 10000/week we would need merit sources generating at least 30-40K per month.
2  Other / Meta / Re: Merit & new rank requirements on: Today at 11:54:22 AM
I think we'll never return to the initial values of 5-10K per week if the forum staff does not add significantly more merit sources. Remember that these high values were only possible because of the "automatically-generated merits", above all those received by high ranks.

There are also merit sources receiving only 10 sMerits per month, which isn't exactly helping to solve the problem. I would propose at least 20 or 30 as a minimum, so they're encouraged to give out a merit every time they see a new merit-worthy post. I think the low value here is a security measure, a kind of "probation" period to prevent abuse by the new merit sources, but once they've shown no suspicious activity in a month or two they should be given a higher amount.
3  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: A proposed solution for lost Bitcoins... on: Today at 11:40:54 AM
My idea is different from prune, i try to only delete genesis block always that i can and estabilish a always a new genesis block.
At same time the chance of could recover address with lost bitcoins and more then 100 years not cashed out.

To really solve full-node really space problems i think maybe this can be better: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5070680
If you're trying to find a "scaling solution", you first have to think about the exact problem you want to solve.

Your solution to simply "delete old blocks" solves primarily the "IBD" (Initial Blockchain Download) problem, i.e. the problem that every full node has to sync to the full blockchain, which costs lots of bandwidth (but isn't a problem at all for nodes that are continuously connected to the network).

That's why I mentioned the Mini-Blockchain project (implemented in a small altcoin called Cryptonite) and UTXO commitments - they solve the exact same issue, but without having to delete transactions (which some see, not without reason, as "stealing"). However, they have other kinds of drawbacks, as I intended to explain.

Your solution also would collide with other scaling proposals, for example, LN and sidechains. For example, a long-running, stable LN channel would run into danger once its channel-opening transaction is near the "deadline". LN implementations would have to re-open the channel in this case, which makes the apps overly complex. The same applies to sidechains: old "burning transactions" that result in "sidechain coins" being created (search for 2-way pegs for an explanation, e.g. here) would be at risk to be "forgotten", too. You could establish special rules for these cases - but again, this results in higher complexity.

However, I encourage you to simply try out the concept, if you're into coding. Fork the Bitcoin code and implement it - that's what altcoins are for, in my opinion Wink If you coin is accepted on the market, then it may become an interesting addition for Bitcoin, too. However, I see only drawbacks with respect to the already proposed solutions (not only LN).

Maybe there is need for a "Scaling solutions" thread, listing LN, sidechains, sharding et al. - so people know what proposals are and the drawbacks of every proposal. In ancient times I created a thread about cryptocurrencies that intend to solve the "scaling" problem, but the scope is slightly different - e.g. it does not cover solutions that are still only concepts and the whole bunch of "2nd layer" proposals from the Bitcoin community.
4  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Ways of transacting with bitcoin must be unified. on: November 16, 2018, 11:58:14 PM
I like Bitpay's Payment Protocol (BIP70) - it is - in theory - very easy to use because the merchant you want to pay generates something like a "pre-transaction" you simply import to your client and it will transact the Bitcoins to the correct address. As you only see the correct payment receiver in the wallet if you imported it correctly, there is practically zero risk to do it wrong. So it's just the method non-experts need ...

I really don't understand why this method isn't supported by all merchants, exchanges and other services, even the implementation in some wallets (@OP, you mentioned your hardware wallet wasn't supporting it at all) is not very straightforward or it isn't even supported. BIP70 would really solve lots of hassles and also reduce fears to mistype an address, for example. So I can imagine it as an attractive "standard payment method". I don't know if it's possible to extend the protocol for LN, however, but a similar protocol possibilitating LN transactions should be possible.

PS: Bitpay itself isn't acting in the best way if it still requires non-Segwit transactions as payments, but as far as I know BIP70 isn't limited to non-Segwit payments.
5  Local / Español (Spanish) / Re: La caída información on: November 16, 2018, 11:51:34 PM
En mí opinión, hay tres o cuatro razones detrás de la caida:
- Caida del soporte clave de $5700 y del "piso" alredor de 6000 que aguantó tanto tiempo. Esto activó stop-losses.
- Esto sumado a expectativas, que vienen de larga data, que el Bitcoin podría bajar hasta los $3000 para repetir el patrón de 2014 cuando bajó aproximadamente un 85% desde su ATH, hace que la gente especule otra vez con una baja.
- La guerra de hashpower de BCH.
- Mineros que cierran sus operaciones en China debido a regulaciones más estrictas (muy probablemente una de las razones por las que registramos un hashrate más bajo que hace un mes). Calculo que para afrontar los costos del cierre, estos ex-mineros liquidarán todos sus BTC.

Explicado de la forma mas simple, puedo decir que  las ballenas de BTC BCH desean mantener la red de BTC BCH y planean vender sus BTC por USD para pagar los valores de haspower y al hacerlo bajaría el costo del BTC por la cantidad de BTC disponibles para la venta en los mercados (ley de oferta y demanda).
Creo que querías decir eso, ¿no? Si bien Wright y Jihan también son ballenas de BTC, en este caso, venderían los BTC por ser ballenas de BCH. Las otras ballenas de BTC, a las que no les importa BCH, no creo que participen de este juego.
6  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: A proposed solution for lost Bitcoins... on: November 16, 2018, 11:32:24 PM
Regarding the "reclaiming blockchain space" problem, there was a research project some years ago, the "Mini-Blockchain project", which would have allowed Bitcoin to run only with pruned nodes. The proposed solution, however, changes the transaction format into one more similar to Ethereum's (account-based instead of UTXO-based) and doesn't allow complex contracts with Bitcoin Script. It is implemented in some altcoins.

The "UTXO commitment" idea comes into my mind, also. In this solution, the UTXO set is hashed and commited to every block, allowing nodes to go online without having to validate the rest of the blockchain. In theory, this could allow mini-blockchains, too - but I think the challenge would be how to handle orphans/reorgs, so at least some hundreds or thousands of blocks would have to be kept.

For other purposes than the blockchain size issue, reclaiming old coins makes no sense for me, like for the other participants in the discussion.
7  Local / Trading und Spekulation / Re: Der Aktuelle Kursverlauf on: November 16, 2018, 01:59:00 PM
Hach, wurden mal wieder ein paar interessante Themen angesprochen hier. Mal mein Senf dazu:

@Benutzerfreundlichkeit: Ja, da gibt es noch viel Verbesserungspotenzial. Zum Teil ist es unverständlich, warum bestimmte Dinge nicht einfach mal angepackt werden. Beispiel: Ich finde das Payment-Protocol von Bitpay ziemlich gut, weil man da als User eigentlich nichts mehr falsch machen kann bei einer Zahlung (z.B. die Adresse falsch eintippen, da habe ich nach 5 Jahren Bitcoin immer noch etwas Bammel). Warum werden solche Protokolle nicht von allen Börsen für Deposits unterstützt? Bitstamp, Cryptopia, Bitcoin.de, Poloniex z.B ... - Fehlanzeige.

@Nerds, die am PC minen: Wird bei Bitcoin nicht mehr kommen. Der Zug ist abgefahren. Selbst wenn eine Asic-Resistance erreicht wird (z.B. ist ProgPoW da anscheinend ganz gut) gibt es immer noch Rechenzentren.

@Paar Chinesen, die den Bitcoin kontrollieren: Ich glaube, dass diese Dominanz bald vorbei ist. Der Grund: Solar-Mining in Ländern wie Mexiko oder Chile dürfte bei Kosten von 2 ct/kWh bald (~2020-22) dem chinesischen Kohlestrom den Rang ablaufen (selbst im wolkigen Deutschland sind schon unter 4 ct/kWh möglich, aber nur bei extrem guten Bedingungen).

@Kurs: Haben die BCHler ihre Munition schon verschossen? Kurzfristig sieht es nach Stabilisierung deutlich über 5000 $ aus. Aber mittelfristig halte ich immer noch die $ 3000 für möglich, da die Lows gerissen wurden, sogar wieder für sehr wahrscheinlich.
8  Local / Español (Spanish) / Re: El Gran Problema de Bitcoin on: November 16, 2018, 03:05:26 AM
No creo que las criptomonedas "semi-centralizadas" como Ripple o las diversas monedas DPoS (EOS y Cia.) tengan mucho éxito a largo plazo y mucho menos que sean la solución al problema de la escalabilidad.

En realidad, están intentando solucionar el problema de tal manera que ya no quedan casi ventajas sobre los sistemas totalmente centralizados, ya que terminan sacrificando el paradigma que "nadie tiene control central sobre el sistema". Y los sistemas de dinero electrónico tradicionales, totalmente centralizados (Visa, PayPal etc.) lamentablemente son más eficientes que las blockchains - hasta pueden emplear algunos conceptos de blockchain (como asegurar bases de datos con hashes) pero sin necesitar mecanismos complicados de consenso ya que está claro desde el principio quién es el que controla los datos. Y Ripple, Lisk, Bitshares y Steem son sistemas con control centralizado, solo que nos pretenden vender que no lo son.

Por eso yo creo que hay que seguir buscando soluciones al problema que sean compatibles con Bitcoin (como LN y las sidechains) y otros coins decentralizados.
9  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin hashrate fell by 20% on: November 16, 2018, 12:48:35 AM
How do you guys posting in this thread, take everything into account other than the main reason behind this? It is about bch civil war, what else it could be? They are recruiting hashpower, isn't that simple?
That explains today's losses, which are around 6%, if I remember right. But it doesn't explain the 20-30% decrease (depending on if you use averages or not) since the end of October. I guess this is more than a regular deviation.

The three reasons mentioned in this thread (BCH, Chinese regulation tightening and reduced mining profit), in my opinion, all are contributing to the hashrate/difficulty loss.
10  Economy / Economics / Re: The "mining cost price floor": Myth or reality? on: November 16, 2018, 12:31:40 AM
I dont get it, take January 2017 when the value of bitcoin was $1000 it was surely economical to mine,
When the value was $4000 it was economical to mine so why not now when the value drops back to
$5500 from $6500?
What about the 4 or 5 month run up to $20000 and then back to todays value?
I think every miner has a personal floor and all the floors are at different levels.
Difficulty increases when the price increases. What we saw in the first half year of 2018 (roughly until September/October) is a difficulty increase even when the price was already decreasing. so a pre-bubble $5500 BTC was much easier to achieve for miners than a post-bubble $5500 BTC. That may be related to hardware updates, but I guess that also the profit margins are thinner now.

Since October, difficulty is stagnant to decreasing, so there seem to be miners that are shutting down their operations, at least temporary. However, it isn't clear if that's not related to the closure of mining farms in China due to regulatory problems.

And even if more miners were shutting down operations from now on, I expect that to stay a gradual process, with no more than a 20% decrease in a difficulty period. So the effect on supply would be small, as I already wrote.
11  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin hashrate fell by 20% on: November 15, 2018, 09:08:18 PM
Ohh so this is the reason why I lost a small fortune  Angry? This is good news maybe to other miners in some parts of the world. It should not be mainly monopolized by chinese entities. Should spread out for the true decentralization.
No, I don't think it has something to do with the price drop yesterday. I guess the selloff is more related to 1) chart signals which were suggesting a move (up or down) and 2) BCH folks selling Bitcoins to finance their own hashrate war, most likely with the "secondary goal" to trigger stop loss orders and try again to "steal" some value from BTC.

Ah, and the 20% are most likely the difference between the local maximum at 10-29 (58 Eh/s) and the minimum a couple of days ago (42 Eh/s).

This statement is 100% wrong. as the hashrate drops, difficulty drops along to maintain an average time of 10 mins per block. nothing will affect the fresh supply but the halving.
Yep ... I guess the supporters of the "mining cost as price floor" over-estimate the effect of 2-4 weeks of slighltly increased block intervals on the supply on the markets - or they have another strange reason (e.g. miners "backing" the price?) I was trying to know in my other thread. But so far everyone agrees with me that the "price floor" effect doesn't exist ... then where does the theory come from?
12  Economy / Economics / Re: The "mining cost price floor": Myth or reality? on: November 15, 2018, 08:38:13 PM
Miners may turn off their electricity to save fiat, however rental costs for the warehouse and any loans to cover the original purchase are still an ongoing expense.
What will happen is the smaller players will fall out of mining and the larger players with the bigger pockets further centralize their control of btc.
That may be a possible effect, it depends however on the grade of dominance of the bigger miners. For example, if smaller miners make up 50% of the hashrate and thus, if they're switching their miners off, hashrate fell to 50% too, then after the next difficulty adjustment they could re-enter the market if the price has not fallen to less than 50% of the original price.

In short: if centralization is already very dominant, it will dominate more in bear markets, but if there is some grade of decentralization, then difficulty adjustments should allow small miners to stay in the game. But I agree that I don't see a "floor" effect here.

Quote
If the price drop is very severe and too long even the big players will fall , and then the bitcoin network hash drops so low that the network dies in a death spiral.
https://cointelegraph.com/news/how-close-did-bitcoin-get-to-disastrous-chain-death-spiral
[...]
That is the danger when the inputs costs to maintain a PoW network exceed the purchase price per coin for any extended period of time.
I guess this is a very extreme scenario, and the hashrate drop in that moment occurred only because of the BCH hard fork which was the first of its kind and had some big miners sympathizing with it. I don't expect that to happen again - with one exception: if a really severe bug is found and exploited (e.g. if the bug discovered ~a month ago was used to create additional coins).

Let me start with variant 2
It makes no sense and it does not cover the full picture.
If the costs outgrow the revenue, the miner suddenly become traders or holders? They could have done this even without mining, and what happens to the gear and their operation?
Agree, the scenario doesn't convince me at all.

Quote
- you might still end up with costs for the building, employers and so on, that might be bigger than the loss you would be made by mining, so you could still mine to have smaller losses or quit completely if you can't afford to prop your business.
Right. I think this is one of the reasons why we'll never see an extreme hashrate drop which could really affect block times and coin supply. It should be a gradual process - smaller miners may switch their hardware off until difficulty allows them to re-enter (see answer to Zin-Zang), but bigger ones will try to stay in the game as long as possible.

Quote
One thing is certain when prices go down
New gear is not added at the same level as before
https://bitcoinwisdom.com/bitcoin/difficulty
[...]
So slowly and slowly we're reaching the point where it's no longer such an attractive business
I guess, however, that after a re-accommodation of the market on the lower price level, it will become attractive again (e.g. by new hardware/technology). The crucial indicator should be the relation between difficulty and mining costs.

13  Local / Trading und Spekulation / Re: Der Aktuelle Kursverlauf on: November 15, 2018, 02:04:09 AM
"hash war"
Interessant, war mir neu. Etwas Info dazu: https://cryptopotato.com/crypto-markets-collapse-is-bitcoin-cash-hash-war-the-reason/

Konkret scheinen wohl einige aus dem BCH-Lager BTC zu verkaufen um Hashrate zu mieten für ihren "Forkfork". (Aber halt: Warum soll Jihan Hashrate mieten sollen? Der hat doch schon genug? Irgendwie unlogisch.)

Bisschen größenwahnsinnig, die Kinder. Glauben sie könnten Bitcoin alleine auf $1000 drücken Wink
14  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin hashrate fell by 20% on: November 15, 2018, 01:59:30 AM
Do you have any idea the cost of a solar and wind turbine system is just to support say 10K Watts of power supplies is?  Do you know how much land/roof area you need to support 10kw worth of panels? False economy!
At least I know some approximate numbers Wink

In Germany, for example, there are a few solar parks generating electricity for about 4 cents per kilowatt/hour (most are generating at 6-8 cent, however). We're talking about a country with a relatively cloudy climate. In Mexico and Chile, solar power plants are being built with the operators guaranteeing prices of ~2 cent per kilowatt-hour. They're expected to get connected to the grid in the early 2020s (I think it was 2021).

So no, massive solar mining is not as far away as you may think.
15  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin hashrate fell by 20% on: November 15, 2018, 12:37:59 AM
Interesting.

A couple of links I found on that topic:
https://www.newsbtc.com/2018/11/13/chinese-bitcoin-mining-centers-fear-electricity-cuts-as-compliance-issues-loom/
https://tech2.org/russia/the-chinese-miners-turned-off-the-electricity-bitcoin-hashreit-decreased/

In theory, this could be a very positive development for Bitcoin. A bit of hashrate diversification would reduce centralization risks and mitigate the chance of an 51% attack or selfish mining.

Maybe, if difficulty lowers a little bit, it's finally time for solar/wind powered mining?

(Some people say that a hashrate drop could even help to find a floor to the price, because as block times become longer there are less rewards paid per day, and thus less supply on the markets. But I have some doubts about that.)
16  Local / Trading und Spekulation / Re: Der Aktuelle Kursverlauf on: November 14, 2018, 11:50:22 PM
Sind wir eigentlich jetzt unter die "Miningkosten", von denen wir es vor ein paar Seiten hatten, gedippt?

Interessant dazu: Die Hashrate nimmt gerade tatsächlich wohl seit Oktober leicht ab: https://www.blockchain.com/de/charts/hash-rate

Das würde theoretisch für die "Floor-Theorie" sprechen, denn es führt zumindest temporär zu längeren Blockphasen und damit einem niedrigeren Angebot an geminten BTC. Aber ich vermute weiterhin, dass der Effekt so schwach ist, dass er keine oder kaum Auswirkungen auf den Preis haben sollte.

Hab zu dem Thema mal im englischen Economics-Forum einen Thread aufgemacht.

Edit: Der Hashrate-Rückgang hat wohl andere Gründe: Einige chinesische Mining-Firmen scheinen Probleme mit den dortigen Behörden zu haben.
17  Economy / Economics / The "mining cost price floor": Myth or reality? on: November 14, 2018, 11:42:33 PM
In several forum posts I've heard that the mining costs, which are (depending on technology, region, etc.) between $5000 and $6000 per BTC, constitute a "floor" for the Bitcoin price.

But I haven't read a convincing theory behind that claim.

One variant which is often mentioned:
When the Bitcoin price drops below the mining costs, many miners would power off their hardware. This would lead to a smaller supply of "mined coins" at the markets.

Even if that occurs (I guess the effect would be rather small) this "smaller supply" is only temporary: it's only smaller until the next difficulty adjustment. So if the hashrate drop was 50% (which would be extreme), that would mean a month of "smaller supply", at most. Would this really influence the price? Additionally, mined coins are only a small fraction of the coins available at the markets.

Variant 2 I read recently:
Some miners are mining BTC to sell them for a more expensive price. If Bitcoin dips below the "production cost", then these miners could buy Bitcoin instead of mining it, and speculate to sell them for a higher price later.

But a miner would only buy if he/she thinks that Bitcoin is undervalued. But in a bear market this is risky. So I don't expect many miners following that pattern.

So these two explanations do not convince me, at all. But the theory is so often mentioned that something may be behind it.

So if you know a better explanation of the "mining cost as price floor" theory, please post it!
18  Local / Trading und Spekulation / Re: Der Aktuelle Kursverlauf on: November 11, 2018, 05:03:23 PM
... Warum sollte er dann nach dem Einstellen des Mining noch Bitcoins kaufen? ...
Aus dem gleichen Grund warum ein Miner weiter mint. Beides ist aus Profittechnischer Sicht Unsinn, kaufen wäre von diesem Unsinn aber die billigere Variante als minen.
Ich denke, dass die Entscheidung, weiterzuminen, vor allem von der Größe der Farm abhängt.

Jemand, der eine große Farm mit Personalkosten usw. betreibt, und Rücklagen hat, der wird die Mining-Operationen weiterlaufen lassen, solange es ihm möglich ist. Er wird nicht einfach so nur wegen eines schlechten Monats sein Unternehmen aufgeben - jedenfalls solange er glaubt, dass der Bitcoinpreis sich später wieder "berappt".

Kleinminer werden ihre Apparate wohl mit größerer Wahrscheinlichkeit abstellen. Aber wieviel von der Hashrate machen die aus?

Dazu kommt, dass man ja darauf spekulieren kann, dass bei sinkender Hashrate weniger Konkurrenz da ist und man weniger Verluste durch Blocks hat, die einem "vor der Nase weggeschnappt" wurden. Wer also sozusagen Sitzfleisch hat wird dann belohnt - und hat dann einen Startvorteil, wenn sich die Difficulty an den neuen Preis angepasst hat.

Im übrigen wäre ein Szenario, bei dem mehr als 50% der Hashrate plötzlich wegfällt, nicht wünschenswert. Denn dann würde sich bis zum nächsten Difficulty-Ausgleich der Blockintervall auf 20 Minuten+ erhöhen. Aber sobald der Ausgleich erfolgt, ist der kleine Effekt des geringeren Angebots an geminten BTC auf dem Markt ja schon wieder weg.

Man hätte also im allerbesten Fall für ein paar Wochen quasi ein "Halving", bei massiven Einschränkungen der Funktionalität. Ob das dem Preis hilft, bezweifle ich.

Edit: @bitcoinincidence, so ähnliche Gedanken habe ich eigentlich auch - siehe auch der Absatz zu den großen Farmen. Und wenn die Miner abgeschaltet werden, geht wie gesagt auch die Funktionalität von Bitcoin "flöten" - bis zum nächsten Diff-Ausgleich, und dann ist der Effekt des geringern Angebots wieder weg.

Da diese Miningkosten-Floor-Theorie ja immer wieder durchs Forum, Reddit, Twitter und Co. geistert, würde mich eine schlüssige Begründung wirklich interessieren Wink
19  Local / Trading und Spekulation / Re: Der Aktuelle Kursverlauf on: November 11, 2018, 02:05:09 PM
@Z80: Der erste Teil ist soweit klar. Das meinte ich ja mit meinem Punkt 2 (bestimmte Miner stellen das Mining dann ein). Wie gesagt aber, das würde nur dann Auswirkungen auf das Angebot (wegen höherem Blockintervall - niedriger "Mining-Rate") haben, wenn es extrem plötzlich passieren würde, also beispielsweise die Durchschnittshashrate gegen Anfang eines Difficulty-Intervalls für den Rest der Phase um 30% abstürzt.

Von den Charts, die ich dazu gesehen habe, zeigen die Erfahrungen eher, dass dieser Absturz der Hashrate in Bärenmärkten ein langsamer Prozess ist. Da spielt sicher auch Moore's Law mit rein (kontinuierlich wird die Hardware effizienter). Das Mining-Angebot von Coins auf den Markt würde also wenn dann nur in sehr geringem Maße zurückgehen und damit keine Auswirkungen auf den Preis haben.

Zum zweiten Teil: Ich gehe  davon aus, dass der Miner nicht aus ideologischen Gründen mint, sondern wie du auch schon sagtest, aus Profitgründen. Warum sollte er dann nach dem Einstellen des Mining noch Bitcoins kaufen?

Der einzige Grund wäre, wenn er den Bitcoinkurs "stützen" möchte. Vielleicht aus langfristigen Erwägungen. Aber dann braucht er den finanziellen Spielraum dazu. Wird also m.E. eher selten vorkommen. Jedenfalls nicht öfter, als dass "Bitcoin-Fans" Bitcoin kaufen, um ihn zu stützen oder um "den Dip zu kaufen". Also für dieses Verhalten ist es m.E. ohne Belang ob er Miner ist oder nicht.


20  Local / Trading und Spekulation / Re: Der Aktuelle Kursverlauf on: November 11, 2018, 12:43:32 PM
@e-coinomist/@bitincidence: Ich habe irgendwie immer noch nicht begriffen, warum die "Miningkosten" sich irgendwie auf den Preis auswirken sollen, z.B. als "Floor".

Wenn ein Miner mit Verlust arbeitet, wird m.E. eines von folgenden beiden Szenarien eintreffen (je nach Größe der Operation):

1) Ich lasse die Miner weiterlaufen, halte mich aber mit Investitionen zurück. Hier gibt es zwei Untervarianten:
-- Ich verkaufe die geminten Bitcoins weiterhin schnell, um die Kosten zu decken. (kleine und mittlere gewerbliche Miner)
-- Ich halte einen Teil der BTC zurück, da ich auf steigende Preise hoffe. (große Miner könnten das eventuell zum Teil tun, aber nicht in großem Stil)
2) Ich schalte die Miner ab.
-- Ich verkaufe die Bitcoins (m.E. bei gewerblichen Minern am wahrscheinlichsten, da sehr oft noch Kosten gedeckt werden müssen)
-- Ich halte sie zurück (vielleicht bei Privat/Hobby-Minern möglich)

Die zweiten Szenarien, bei denen bestimmte Akteure Coins zurückhalten, sind m.E. beidesmal weniger wahrscheinlich. Jedenfalls nicht wahrscheinlicher als wenn die geminten Coins die Kosten decken.

Dann kommt es m.E. einfach nur langfristig zu einem Abfall der Hashrate, die Miner, die den Rückgang ausgehalten haben werden wieder profitabler, eventuell kommen wieder Kleinminer dazu. Aber warum dieses "neue Mining-Ökosystem" sich vom alten im Verkaufsverhalten (nennen's wir mal so) unterscheiden sollen, erschließt sich mir nicht.

Kennt jemand eventuell einen Link auf eine plausible Erklärung dieser "Miningkosten als Floor"-Theorie?

Edit: Die einzige Möglichkeit, die mir einfällt, wäre wenn weniger Hashrate längere Block-Times erzeugt und dann die Produktion (und damit das Angebot an geminten BTC auf dem Markt) temporär leicht zurückgeht. Aber dieser Vorgang würde so langsam ablaufen, dass der Difficulty-Ausgleich noch schnell genug wäre, um keinen wirklich signifikanten Abfall des Angebots zu verursachen.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 ... 257 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!