We know that bitcoin is not a coin, we just named it as a coin. instead bitcoin is a digital public ledger which is not edited or manipulated by anyone.
so why it has a smallest unit of 1 satoshi, why not less than 1 satoshi like this "0.0000000000001 BTC"? if it's a ledger then why it has a limit?
we can write anything we want in a paper ledger then why in bitcoin's case it's different?
In addition to what o_e_l_e_o said, also note that there are limitations regarding how computers store large numbers. Bitcoin amounts for example are stored as int64, which can store numbers "only" as large as 9,223,372,036,854,775,807 (i.e. 2^63, with one of the 64 bits signifying whether the number is positive or negative). Taking your example of "0.0000000000001 BTC" and defining a Bitcoin as 10,000,000,000,000 a transaction of 1,000,000 BTC would be too large a number too handle and break the network (or more realistically probably just yield an invalid transaction). So while there would be room for more digits, there are fundamental limitations based on how a computer operates. |
|
|
|
|
Prediction 1: $23,840.10
bech32 address: bc1qwvnm4g4jfjg5nr0pzu9mxdyu865f24nc0dckhv
|
|
|
|
|
Das wichtigste ist meiner Meinung nach sich im Vorfeld einen Plan zurecht zu legen wie man in den Markt einsteigen möchte bzw. wie der Exit ausschauen soll. Sprich wieviel ist man bereit zu investieren, über welchen Zeitraum kauft man sich ein (z.B. alles auf einmal, DCA, bei bestimmten Schwellenwerten...) und wann zieht man Profit (Hodl hin oder her, wenn man zumindest mal den ursprünglichen "Einsatz" wieder "rausgeholt" hat lebt es sich doch entspannter). Dabei muss man natürlich ehrlich mit sich selber sein und seine eigenen psychischen und finanziellen Grenzen kennen.
Ob der Plan dann den "Feindkontakt" tatsächlich überlebt ist eine andere Frage, aber damit hat man zumindest eine Baseline an der man sich orientieren kann sobald es ernst wird, die Emotionen hochschwappen und man vielleicht kurzfristig nicht 100% zurechnungsfähig ist. Das betrifft Panik-Einkäufe genauso wie Panik-Verkäufe.
|
|
|
|
There are 81% of Bitcoin owners who, probably because of the lack of Bitcoin Education or laziness, say that they'll move their coins to their bank's "crypto storage" if it was available. It will not be a good future, if true.
Let's pretend that pie chart also represents the rest of the world, and that a large portion of the supply has actually been "deposited" under the control of centralized entities. How much of the total supply must be under the control of a Cabal before we could consider that Bitcoin has failed?
81% of Bitcoin owners does not necessarily mean 81% of bitcoins since I would assume that those 81% are rather newish to Bitcoin and accordingly have smaller holdings than the remaining 19%. So that makes it slightly less bad, in a way? Except it shows as disconcerting disregard for Bitcoin's core principles. So accordingly I'm afraid to some extend Bitcoin already has failed. Not in the sense that it's really in danger of being under centralized control, but rather in that it has failed to convince people of trustlessness, permissionlessness and rethinking monetary sovereignty. But maybe there's still hope that folks will learn their lesson before they ruin the space for the rest of us. |
|
|
|
|
Prediction 2: EUR 23306,-
Username: heretik2
|
|
|
|
|
Prediction 2: $25,092.05
bech32 address: bc1qwvnm4g4jfjg5nr0pzu9mxdyu865f24nc0dckhv
|
|
|
|
In reality, he could have chosen a smoother approximation of Wt[t] – reducing the block reward every 10 blocks, or every 100 blocks, or every 1000 blocks.
Of course! But I also think Bitcoin wouldn't have been quite as successful with a smooth emission curve. I think he opted for a halving of the block reward every 4 years simply to make it easier for regular people unfamiliar with mathematics to remember and comprehend.
It's a great hook considering how weird and confusing the other mechanics of Bitcoin may seem at a first glance. All things considered the halving is one of the easiest concepts to explain to a newcomer. Apart from that a smooth emission curve wouldn't have resulted in the sudden supply shocks that lead to Bitcoin's notorious bubbles which in turn placed it on everyone's radar. Add to that a cycle of predictable, publicly known, future supply shocks and you get yourself a self-fulling prophecy -- not only because one "knows" when to expect the next price increase, but also because price increases are expected by most market participants at roughly the same time. Why was satoshi so obsessed with the number 8?  The number 21 was just a distraction all along  not to mention the year 2008.
The plot thickens |
|
|
|
From what I remember, sorry a bit of faded memories, the first important metric for Satoshi was the block time target of 10min. It was likely a compromise but mainly focussed on security. To my knowledge a smaller block time, particularly in the beginning of the Bitcoin blockchain, would've had less security and stability (don't press me on that, though). The likelyhood of certain attacks rises with significantly shorter block time. Much larger than 10min isn't nice either, not in terms of security but user experience (nobody wants to wait too long for stable and secure confirmation of their transactions). Yes, IIRC 10 minutes were considered the sweet spot between reliability and convenience, though satoshi erred more in favor of reliability. It was only with the first generations of alts that we found out how low block times can be pushed. Litecoin's 2.5 minutes worked fine while other alts that went to blocktimes of less than a minute tended to suffer from high orphan rates and reorgs. While later alts have been able to successfully go to blocktimes below one minute, they arguably could take lessons from earlier failed attempts. The bigger question IMO would indeed be why satoshi then chose 210,000 blocks per halving period, resulting in the 4 years between each halving as pointed out by LoyceV. My pet theory has always been that satoshi had a hunch that 4 years would be the perfect interval for boom and bust hype cycles, ie. enough time for people to forget about Bitcoin and the pain of having bought at the top, but not so long as to completely drop out of the collective consciousness. But in hindsight it's of course always easy to see deliberate choice in what might have just been serendipity. |
|
|
|
Kaum begonnen ist das Tippspiel für viele auch schon wieder vorbei.
Heute Nacht der Dip bis 24.800$ hat jedenfalls schon einmal ordentlich Dynamik reingebracht und das Teilnehmerfeld nicht unerheblich ausgedünnt.
Nach aktuellem Stand ist HeRetiK mit einer absoluten Punktlandung führend.
Mal schauen ob mein Tipp auch tatsächlich hält. Der Crash fiel dann doch ein bisschen rascher und massiver aus als ich erwartet hätte und nach einem richtigen Bounce schaut es momentan auch noch nicht aus  Bitcoin bleibt spannend  |
|
|
|
By the way, years ago paypal blocked my account because I logged in from too many IPs. That's what happens when you travel a lot. Even when I proved I am me they still made it supper difficult. I somehow got to withdraw my money closed my account. Just a joke site for me.
That's part of the reason why I got into Bitcoin in the first place. I didn't even use PayPal much at the time, so it rather confused than bothered me, but it first taught me about monetary sovereignity (or rather the lack thereof on an individual level). Yea sure, Bitcoin to 40k will never happen again. That's what people said when Bitcoin was at $400, they said it will never go back up to it's ATH. Guess what happened? It made a new ATH every cycle. Now coming back to the topic of PayPal, they are just a joke to be honest. They should not be associated with Bitcoin or any Crypto at all. Companies or Exchanges like Coinbase and Binance are preparing their own endpoints which can be easily integrated in your website for business payments.
People making those comments are simply blind to the history surrounding bitcoin, anyone that has some time can probably find posts in which people claimed bitcoin will never reach a particular price only for those people to be proven wrong over the years, besides it is not as if 40k is an insurmountable mountain or anything like that, bitcoin is just 11k away from it, and with the huge volatility that we know can emerge out of nowhere then reaching that price again is a certainty. If anything that kind of mediocre FUD just makes me more bullish. |
|
|
|
Though I particularly find this comment amusing, and sure disagree, but then, i just wanna find out what you guys think, do you think such news as this, coming from a company like PayPal, has the strength enough to stunt the price growth of bitcoin?
I don't think PayPal is yet relevant enough in the crypto space to have any meaningful impact by halting trading. We've been through much, much worse in that regard. Bitcoin did well before PayPal started acting as an exchange, Bitcoin will do well after. And that is assuming there is some merit to this claim to begin with. |
|
|
|
|
Prediction 1: EUR 26685,-
Username: heretik2
|
|
|
|
Der aktuelle Kursverlauf spiegelt sich exakt in diesem Faden wieder  Nicht mehr viel los und es ist schon fast ein bisschen langweilig geworden. Da bin ich ja mal gespannt, ob wir diesen Herbst wirklich schon einen mit 2017 vergleichbaren Anstieg sehen werden. Ist ja auch viel zu schönes Wetter momentan, da bin ich schon zufrieden dass der Bitcoin-Kurs mich mal ausnahmsweise nicht an den Bildschirm fesselt Für mich sieht der Chart momentan so aus, als wenn die Luft eher raus wäre. Andere sehen dagegen, dass es derzeit brodelt unter dem 30k Deckel.
Ein brodeln sehe ich auch nicht. Ich würd eher sagen der Kurs köchelt auf kleiner Flamme um den Preis warm zu halten bis alle vom Urlaub zurück sind. |
|
|
|
Honestly that just seems like escrow that on-chain doesn't look like escrow due to the usage of Schnorr signatures? Because what the oracle does, does not seem to be much different from a classical escrow with a 2-of-3 signature scheme, with a rather arbitrary broader definition of what the escrow/oracle does (ie. both escrows and oracle functionally merely decide to whom the money goes). I might be missing something tho. Anyways, if the data feed is going to be determined by humans, there will be ways to manipulate the outcome. So the data feed needs to come from a source difficult to manipulate like a blockchain.
To be fair they do address this issue and having the outcome determined by a off-chain source seems to be the whole point of DLCs. |
|
|
|
|
Prediction 1: $28,922.60
bech32 address: bc1qwvnm4g4jfjg5nr0pzu9mxdyu865f24nc0dckhv
|
|
|
|
I don't understand, how do you add crypto currencies to a 60/40 stocks/bond portfolio? Isn't it already at a 100, where do we get the 84.9% for Bitcoins from? By reducing the positions held in stocks and bonds: Starting with a 60-40 equity-bond portfolio, which is produced with a risk aversion of 𝛾 = 1.50, the optimal BTC allocation is a large 84.9%! The remainder of the portfolio, 15.1% is split 60-40 between equities and bonds. To me this number seems really high. It is, and if you look at the paper itself you'll see it's just one particular way of modelling optimal exposure. Another model that they use in the paper comes to a more conventional conclusion of 9.5%. Blackrock is the largest ETF company in the world and the main selling point of ETFs is to buy the index as it's cheap and offers a high level of diversification. Putting now almost everything into one investment seems very risky. While BlackRock's ETFs offer diversification, it's still up to the individual investors themselves to stay reasonably diversified. If their filing for a Bitcoin ETF succeeds, it won't matter for BlackRock how your portfolio structured, as long as it contains ETFs on which they make money. |
|
|
|
I tried reading the entire paper but because of my very limited comprehension capacity of the technicalities the authors were talking about, I decided not to continue.
I assume those who cherry-picked didn't also thoroughly understand the paper. They spread the cherry-picked lines, nonetheless. OP is one of them. There are many others in social media who did the same. Even those who I think are capable of separating the wheat from the chaff are equally irresponsible for spreading it.
Worse, they are putting words in BlackRock's mouth. This isn't BlacRock's opinion. This is not a study done by BlackRock. BlackRock has nothing to do with it. Those who started spreading this fake news are just using the huge brand to create a baseless FOMO.
To be fair the paper is by a team entirely of BlackRock employees, with full disclosure of them working for BlackRock to the point that it even includes BlackRock's boilerplate disclaimer appendix, including copyright notice. So while it's not BlackRock's official opinion, it does indeed appear to be sanctioned by the company, at least to some extend. Either way, I don't think you'll ever find a company like BlackRock taking an official stance outside of carefully constructed messaging. Their CEO could say that the sky is blue and it would still come with the disclaimer that his views are his alone and do not express the views of BlackRock. That being said, this kind of sensationalism does, in my opinion, not help Bitcoin's image. It's a stupidly high allocation that no one that isn't already convinced of crypto would take serious. Heck, even within crypto you'd probably be at the bleeding edge with this kind of allocation -- though admittedly, without active reallocation, Bitcoin tends to take portfolios over all by itself. |
|
|
|
Anyway, the subject is misleading. You should correct it lest it be misunderstood as a mega-bullish stand of BlackRock. This actually isn't BlackRock's opinion or view. This is simply the personal view of the three authors who happened to be working with BlackRock. But this study is not in any way sanctioned by BlackRock itself.
I'm not sure I'd even call it the personal view of the authors. If you read the paper, the number quoted by OP (and various crypto-news outlets) is not even the conclusion. It's just the cherry picked result of one of two mathematical asset allocation models being applied to Bitcoin. The other model they apply, Cumulative Prospect Theory, comes to a slightly different conclusion: In order to obtain finite solutions, we change the mean of BTC in the normal regime to correspond to a loss of 90%. That is, we set exp(𝜇2) = 0.1, or 𝜇2 = −2.303. We also change the probability of the bliss regime to 𝑝 = 0.001, with the same mean, 𝜇1, and standard deviation, 𝜎1, of the BTC bliss regime as the empirical estimate reported in Exhibit 3. This distribution has the same extreme right-hand tail payoff as the original process, but it occurs with a much smaller probability, 𝑝 = 0.001, versus the empirical estimate of 𝑝 = 0.036. Even with this tiny probability, the optimal BTC holding is 9.5% holding the 28-72 equity-bond portfolio fixed in pro-rata allocations. Exhibit 7, Panel B plots the CPT utility function for the three-asset BTC-equities-bonds portfolio. The maximum utlity corresponds to the optimal BTC holding of 9.5%, with the equity and bond holdings being held in the same 28-72 pro-rata allocation for the remaining 90.5% of the portfolio. TL;DR: The authors apply two models, one resulting in a BTC allocation of 84.9% and a risk averse one, resulting in a BTC allocation of 9.5%. The latter one is not newsworthy nowadays, so of course everyone is only focusing on the bigger number. (even 9.5% percent would still be huge, mind you) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
