Bitcoin Forum
June 17, 2025, 08:38:33 PM *
News: Pizza day contest voting
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: How far will this leg take us?
$110K - 6 (7.1%)
$120K - 14 (16.7%)
$130K - 12 (14.3%)
$140K - 9 (10.7%)
$150K - 14 (16.7%)
$160K - 1 (1.2%)
$170K+ - 28 (33.3%)
Total Voters: 84

Pages: « 1 ... 27050 27051 27052 27053 27054 27055 27056 27057 27058 27059 27060 27061 27062 27063 27064 27065 27066 27067 27068 27069 27070 27071 27072 27073 27074 27075 27076 27077 27078 27079 27080 27081 27082 27083 27084 27085 27086 27087 27088 27089 27090 27091 27092 27093 27094 27095 27096 27097 27098 27099 [27100] 27101 27102 27103 27104 27105 27106 27107 27108 27109 27110 27111 27112 27113 27114 27115 27116 27117 27118 27119 27120 27121 27122 27123 27124 27125 27126 27127 27128 27129 27130 27131 27132 27133 27134 27135 27136 27137 27138 27139 27140 27141 27142 27143 27144 27145 27146 27147 27148 27149 27150 ... 34643 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 26794671 times)
This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic. (174 posts by 1 users with 9 merit deleted.)
Hueristic
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4214
Merit: 6045


Doomed to see the future and unable to prevent it


View Profile
September 20, 2020, 11:19:13 PM
Merited by El duderino_ (4)

Congratulations AlcoHoDL, well deserved. Smiley
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3080
Merit: 1689


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
September 20, 2020, 11:40:05 PM

**LOTTA CAPSTYPINGS***
Happy Saturday!

Just to be clear, you seem to be stating that a future where transaction fees being $100, $1000 or even more per on-chain tx is a distinct possibility?

That as a possibility is implicit in my thoughts, I'd say, yes.  

OK, so here's the relevant followup question. When average tx fees are $1000, what is the typical profile of a person willing to run a non-mining validator? Let's start simple on this - how many tx per year might the average such person make?

1? or even 0? average person will fully transact on L2+

Hmmm, while I am a full fan of L2+ for day to day transactions the idea of $1000 fees for transacting on-chain is somewhat hard to digest though. What kind of marketcap are we considering for this scenario? What level of adoption? I do agree that, with a high enough level of worldwide adoption, the average person will probably NEVER transact onchain even if he do use Bitcoin directly (but L2+) or indirectly (100% custodial/off-chain).

What is the incentive for anyone to expend time, toil, and treasure in the exercise of validating a chain upon which they never transact?
rolling
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 824
Merit: 712


View Profile
September 21, 2020, 12:23:59 AM
Last edit: September 21, 2020, 01:26:13 AM by rolling

rolling explicitly alleged that in the future, ordinary people will be completely priced out of on-chain transactions.  That is bog standard bigblocker nonsense, except with the twist that rolling relishes his fantasy of the blockchain being only the for the “big boys”.  Quote-unquote.  His words.

On-chain will be for the big boys.

My argument is people are idiots and the few who aren't will be priced out of the market by high fees.

Your argument is pie in the sky nonsense in regards to a fear of a future of bitcoin evolving in a way that squeezes out the little guy...

I never said I relish the idea of people being priced out. It's just an unavoidable reality, not what I think should happen.

I don't know why anyone would have fear of bitcoin evolving to a point where people were willing and able to pay those high fees.
cAPSLOCK
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4046
Merit: 6170



View Profile
September 21, 2020, 12:28:43 AM
Merited by 600watt (1)

**LOTTA CAPSTYPINGS***
Happy Saturday!

Just to be clear, you seem to be stating that a future where transaction fees being $100, $1000 or even more per on-chain tx is a distinct possibility?

That as a possibility is implicit in my thoughts, I'd say, yes.  

OK, so here's the relevant followup question. When average tx fees are $1000, what is the typical profile of a person willing to run a non-mining validator? Let's start simple on this - how many tx per year might the average such person make?

I like where you are going.

But since the requirement for validating nodes is kept low it would continue to be in EVERYONE's best interest to run one. Even if I am not directly writing data to the block chain I would benefit by monitoring those who do.  In fact monitoring the whale moves of banks, governments, and retired WO members would be of great sport and interest.  Not just for security, but for knowledge.  I used to think the Whale Alert accounts on twitter were a novelty, but they are actually an indicator.  

People ran Seti@Home even though they got no green stamps from Martians for doing it, and same thing with the folding app for the genome.  And I would say validating one of the most important ledgers on the planet would command MUCH greater incentive.  Bitcoin is for enemies after all.

And as layer 2 is currently being built out people who run lightning nodes are STRONGLY incentivized to run a corresponding Bitcoin node.  I think as second+ layer solutions are developed we will see more and more interest in that among a much wider group than the hobbyists (like me) who do now.

On top of that I think we will see mining hardware possibly become commoditised.   As energy production changes BITCOIN is poised to soak up a lot of spotlight.  This will most likely decentralize even MINING nodes.  People with solar energy systems may be able to choose to sell excess energy to the grid, or instead use it on commodity ASIC hardware to produce Bitcoin.  And by that time  the price of energy will be at least joined at the hip with BTC production if not outright dictated by it.

What do you think?

cAPSLOCK
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4046
Merit: 6170



View Profile
September 21, 2020, 12:34:11 AM

**LOTTA CAPSTYPINGS***
Happy Saturday!

Just to be clear, you seem to be stating that a future where transaction fees being $100, $1000 or even more per on-chain tx is a distinct possibility?

That as a possibility is implicit in my thoughts, I'd say, yes. 

OK, so here's the relevant followup question. When average tx fees are $1000, what is the typical profile of a person willing to run a non-mining validator? Let's start simple on this - how many tx per year might the average such person make?

1? or even 0? average person will fully transact on L2+

Hmmm, while I am a full fan of L2+ for day to day transactions the idea of $1000 fees for transacting on-chain is somewhat hard to digest though. What kind of marketcap are we considering for this scenario? What level of adoption? I do agree that, with a high enough level of worldwide adoption, the average person will probably NEVER transact onchain even if he do use Bitcoin directly (but L2+) or indirectly (100% custodial/off-chain).

What is the incentive for anyone to expend time, toil, and treasure in the exercise of validating a chain upon which they never transact?

To be able to do it for an asset which no one controls, nor can change the issuance of, as opposed to slaving away for an asset that is controlled by a party (The Fed) who does not have our best interests at heart ultimately.

Just because I do not write the TCP packets for this message, nor do I own the fiber network over which it travels does not mean that I am not transacting on it.  Why are not layer 2 transactions not at their root (settlement) a part of Bitcoin transactions?

 
DaRude
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2995
Merit: 1963


In order to dump coins one must have coins


View Profile
September 21, 2020, 01:17:06 AM

**LOTTA CAPSTYPINGS***
Happy Saturday!

Just to be clear, you seem to be stating that a future where transaction fees being $100, $1000 or even more per on-chain tx is a distinct possibility?

That as a possibility is implicit in my thoughts, I'd say, yes.  

OK, so here's the relevant followup question. When average tx fees are $1000, what is the typical profile of a person willing to run a non-mining validator? Let's start simple on this - how many tx per year might the average such person make?

1? or even 0? average person will fully transact on L2+

Hmmm, while I am a full fan of L2+ for day to day transactions the idea of $1000 fees for transacting on-chain is somewhat hard to digest though. What kind of marketcap are we considering for this scenario? What level of adoption? I do agree that, with a high enough level of worldwide adoption, the average person will probably NEVER transact onchain even if he do use Bitcoin directly (but L2+) or indirectly (100% custodial/off-chain).

What is the incentive for anyone to expend time, toil, and treasure in the exercise of validating a chain upon which they never transact?

For a typical grandma, that doesn't run her computer 24/7 probably none. But every single concentrator/bank/cashapp/paypal/venmo/zelle/facebook(soon?) that those people use will run it's own node, and every person that wishes to validate chain will always have the option to if they wish.
nullius
Copper Member
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630
Merit: 2615


If you don’t do PGP, you don’t do crypto!


View Profile WWW
September 21, 2020, 01:30:05 AM


Wow, you're a complete asshat aren't you.

You are rude, combative, and argumentative toward anyone who disagrees with your predictions crystal-ball certainty of the future.  And you started that before anyone even replied to you.  Indeed, I only bothered replying to you after some other people seemed intimidated and dismayed by your arrogant hogwash.  I did that for them, and for other readers, not for you.

Want an “asshat”?  Reread your own posts, and look in the mirror.

I never said I relish the idea of people being priced out.

I never said that you said so.  You have consistently acted like you relish the idea:  You posts drip contempt of anybody who doesn’t join the “big boys” so they can afford “$1000+” transaction costs—logically including people who are now children, or not yet born; how, praytell, are they supposed to rush to “fill [their] bags now while BTC is still dirt cheap” now, as you put it, such that they can use Bitcoin to avoid financial enslavement?  Or what about people who actually, sincerely cannot afford right now to acquire (whatever you believe to be) “big boy” amounts of Bitcoin?  They (admittedly, we) deserve to be forever locked out of “Be Your Own Bank” financial freedom?

I have repeatedly quoted you at length.  I see no reason to add yet another collection of quotes, now redundant.  Those who question my analysis and interpretation of your posts may go reread upthread.

And don’t you dare say that anybody who really wants to, can.  Not so many years ago, I literally took money intended for food and used it instead to make my very first BTC buy.  If I do say so myself, that bespeaks commitment and skin in the game.  I have more now, but I am obviously not filling any “bags”.  Whereas I am only in this position, at this point in my life, due to being principled and suffering some bad events caused by big-bank chicanery!  On behalf of everybody who is neither rich, nor a bank-loving natural born slave:  Fuck you for consistently, undeniably acting like everybody who doesn’t grab a big BTC stash at today’s mouth-wateringly low prices is just a chump to be herded into Paypal 2.0, Blockchain Edition.

If you don't like it, become one of the big boys by filling your bags now while BTC is still dirt cheap.



It's just a reality, not what I think should happen or even what I prefer.

A standard propaganda ploy:  Repeatedly assert something without explaining just why it is so inevitable, peremptorily make conclusory statements and condescend toward anybody who even questions what you say, and then, when you are called out for it, switch to what you just said.

Whereas you have not even begun to explain why you think that your future vision is inevitable, instead of a future in which on-chain scaling improvements combined with trustless, permissionless off-chain protocols such as Lightning make management of one’s own private keys still available to anybody who wants it.

I don't know why anyone would have fear of bitcoin evolving to a point where people were willing and able to pay those high fees.

Logically, this means one or the other of two things:

  • Bitcoin will make everybody rich!  Everybody!  Forever!  Let’s all go to the moon!
  • Only a very limited subset of people now living (or their heirs) deserve the benefits of Bitcoin, in terms of permissionless control of one’s own money.  Fuck everybody else.

Either-or.



Reply to jbreher is in the pipeline.
Toxic2040
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834
Merit: 4197



View Profile
September 21, 2020, 02:25:02 AM

charts..charts everywhere

#dyor
1h


1h


4h


stuck in the middle with you
D


W

#manuforti
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 4116
Merit: 12361


Self-Custody is a right. Say no to "non-custodial"


View Profile
September 21, 2020, 03:31:57 AM

Apple's market cap is down around 20% from ATH a month ago to $1,8 trillion. If bitcoin had the same market cap as that one company, each BTC would need be worth $100k, doesn't sound that crazy now.

yep I see multiple hedging efforts by major money people over the next year 50k 100k 250k even 500k can happen.

I thought that you were stuck in the reasonableness and plausibility of a kind of $50 to $75k-ish territory previously, philip? 

In recent times, are you becoming more bullish based on recent happenings (or am I misunderstanding you?), or just throwing out ideas regarding the possibility of multiple bullish scenarios and that way you are covered in your multitude of predictions no matter if our next UPpity cycle (presuming it comes) is baby bullish or super bullish?
AlcoHoDL
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2772
Merit: 5478


Addicted to HoDLing!


View Profile
September 21, 2020, 05:07:17 AM
Merited by 600watt (1)

Grats! Well earned AlcoHoDL

AlcoHoDL : congrats on Legendary, the path is still long for me !

On an unrelated note: Congrats @AlcoHoDL!

Congratulations AlcoHoDL, well deserved. Smiley

Thanks guys! And equally to all WO members!

As Jimbo would say... Go WO, go!
bitebits
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2317
Merit: 3791


Flippin' burgers since 1163.


View Profile
September 21, 2020, 05:11:02 AM
Merited by El duderino_ (7), AlcoHoDL (1)

https://twitter.com/nickgiambruno/status/1307389546561179653

Quote
A trillion seconds ago was 30,000 B.C.

A quadrillion seconds ago was 32 million years ago.

A quintillion seconds ago was 32 billion years ago. (The age of the universe is 13.8 billion years.)

The computing power that secures Bitcoin is 139 quintillion calculations PER SECOND.
nullius
Copper Member
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630
Merit: 2615


If you don’t do PGP, you don’t do crypto!


View Profile WWW
September 21, 2020, 05:21:03 AM
Merited by aesma (1), Last of the V8s (1)

Satoshi’s actual vision:

Quote from: Satoshi Nakamoto (bitcoin.pdf, §11, p. 6)
We consider the scenario of an attacker trying to generate an alternate chain faster than the honest chain.  Even if this is accomplished, it does not throw the system open to arbitrary changes, such as creating value out of thin air or taking money that never belonged to the attacker.  Nodes are not going to accept an invalid transaction as payment, and honest nodes will never accept a block containing them.  An attacker can only try to change one of his own transactions to take back money he recently spent.

I dislike quoting Satoshi in this context, as if for argument from authority.  The explanation below was drafted in my own words, off the top of my head, before I went back to refresh my memory on what the Bitcoin whitepaper says.  It is a document now primarily of historical interest, although some of its astonishing technical insights are still quite relevant.

Whereas that is the sacred design of Bitcoin v0.1.  Just sayin’.



You asswipe.
nullius (you fucking liar)

My, my, Mr Bear.  Something must have rankled.

So, anyway, you may be an audio engineer (hereby stated upon information and belief).  In that case, you should easily understand this analogy:  Your knowledge of Bitcoin security and of Segwit is on the same level as the audio knowledge of people who believe that in PCM digital audio, the number of samples per second determines the sizes of the tiny little stair-steps in the output waveform.

You may not need a lecture about Nyquist, but you certainly have much to learn about Bitcoin.

For others reading this thread, PSA:  There are no tiny little stair-steps.  In accord with the Nyquist Theorem, the discrete samples mathematically reproduce a perfectly smooth waveform.  And no, a miner “ANYONECANSPEND” attack on Segwit could not steal coins.  This is basic stuff...



I must misunderstand you somehow. You seem to be saying that: should a majority of SAH256 mining power choose to revert to pre-segwit protocol, and to defend that decision by attacking any competing chain, they would be literally unable to do so. Is that your claim?

Yes, indeed.  To help you understand why, let me fix this for you:

I must misunderstand you somehow. You seem to be saying that: should a majority of SHA256 mining power choose to revert to pre-segwit protocol violate consensus rules by arbitrarily spending coins without the needed signatures, inflating the money supply, or whatever else may suit their whims, and to defend that decision by attacking any competing chain, they would be literally unable to do so. Is that your claim?

My claim is only and exactly that in accord with Bitcoin’s security model, the violation of Segwit rules is the same as the violation of any other consensus rules.

For miners to “revert” Segwit would be no different in practice than for malicious miners to activate new rules implementing demurrage that eats up your coins in cold storage, or creating 21 trillion new bitcoins, or letting them spend any coin they want without checking signatures.

Which they are “literally unable to do”.

Because the code for nodes to accept such things does not exist.  Code to “revert to a pre-Segwit protocol” literally does not exist in Core.  If it did, that would be a hell of a CVE.

Why is this so hard for some people to understand?  Is it a matter of confusion over “ANYONECANSPEND”?  That is only a cute trick to add new rules without confusing non-upgraded nodes.  It is otherwise irrelevant.  Segwit nodes do not have a codepath that lets miners make them switch off Segwit validation logic and treat Segwit transactions as spendable by anyone.  Segwit nodes will neither accept nor propagate blocks that violate the totality of their hardcoded consensus rules—a set of rules which, following the August 2017 activation, includes all Segwit rules (thus both permitting and enforcing Segwit transactions).  So, good luck carrying off an “attack” with blocks that will be ignored as if completely nonexistent by every node that has upgraded since October 2016, i.e. pretty much everybody.  It’s the dumbest attack idea that I have ever heard of.



A colluding malicious majority of hashpower could indeed wreck Bitcoin.  Or BCH.  Or BSV.  Or any other coin based on any similar design.

To do so, violating consensus rules is neither necessary, nor sufficient, nor profitable:  They could instead just rewrite blockchain history with a plain-old 51% attack that will fool validating nodes (but can only achieve double-spends).

N.b. that a 51% attack is by its nature an attack on “any competing chain” (i.e., the other 49%’s chain).  Again:  This does not even require violating consensus rules; and non-mining nodes are totally powerless against it!

For that reason, a malicious majority of hashpower is a threat explicitly beyond the scope of Bitcoin’s security model.  That is n00b-level knowledge.  Is it news to you?

But even a malicious majority of miners cannot steal coins that they never owned—Segwit or otherwise.



You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.  The rules for spending coins sent to an address starting with a “1” are enforced by exactly the same security model as protects coins sent to addresses starting with “bc1”.  Whereas you are trying artifically to construct some notion of a hashpower majority attack which can violate some consensus rules, whilst remaining bound by others.  You don’t know how to ask the right question, viz.:  What stops miners from just spending any coins they want?  Answer:  Consensus rules.  Enforced by validating nodes.  Just as Satoshi said in the Bitcoin whitepaper.  That was his vision.

I have said before, and I will say again:

Full nodes do not blindly “follow the longest chain”.  They follow the chain independently validated by them which has the highest total POW.  A miner (or 51+% of miners) who produced invalid blocks would only be wasting hashrate, and likely risking widespread blacklisting of IP addresses.  It doesn’t matter if the invalid blocks steal money from Segwit transactions, steal money from old-style transactions, create 21 billion new coins, or are filled with gibberish from /dev/random.  An invalid block is an invalid block, and shall be promptly discarded by all full nodes—period.



More than half of this post was cut on preview, to avoid waste.  The rest can be summed up as (a) jbreher continues to do his usual Faketoshi apologia whilst denying it, (b) he lacks reading comprehension skills, and (c) he is correct on one point:  I have no experience whatsoever with popular music.  I do not produce it.  I do not even listen to it!  Not all music is pop.
AlcoHoDL
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2772
Merit: 5478


Addicted to HoDLing!


View Profile
September 21, 2020, 05:27:24 AM
Last edit: September 21, 2020, 05:39:15 AM by AlcoHoDL

https://twitter.com/nickgiambruno/status/1307389546561179653

Quote
A trillion seconds ago was 30,000 B.C.

A quadrillion seconds ago was 32 million years ago.

A quintillion seconds ago was 32 billion years ago. (The age of the universe is 13.8 billion years.)

The computing power that secures Bitcoin is 139 quintillion calculations PER SECOND.

So, according to the above numbers, it takes only about 3 milliseconds (0.003 seconds) for the Bitcoin network to perform as many calculations as there are seconds since the birth of the universe!

In other words, in every second that passes, the above process is repeated more than 300 times!

Wow! Just WOW!
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 4116
Merit: 12361


Self-Custody is a right. Say no to "non-custodial"


View Profile
September 21, 2020, 05:40:19 AM

[various jbreher comments]
The rest can be summed up as (a) jbreher continues to do his usual Faketoshi apologia whilst denying it, (b) he lacks reading comprehension skills, and (c) he is correct on one point:  I have no experience whatsoever with popular music.  I do not produce it. I do not even listen to it!  Not all music is pop.

hahahahahaha

I recall at one point, recently, you, nullius, had proclaimed that Phantom of the Opera was "pop" music and not worthy of a listen, and then at one point some random peep from the interwebs (perhaps yours truly?) suggested that you might try listening to such music, and thereafter you became a Phantom of the Opera fanastic.  

Point is that any of us interweb peeps could change some aspects of our preferences, and why not give dee bear a chance? (not that he deserves one.)

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

https://twitter.com/nickgiambruno/status/1307389546561179653

Quote
A trillion seconds ago was 30,000 B.C.

A quadrillion seconds ago was 32 million years ago.

A quintillion seconds ago was 32 billion years ago. (The age of the universe is 13.8 billion years.)

The computing power that secures Bitcoin is 139 quintillion calculations PER SECOND.

So, according to the above numbers, it takes only about 3 milliseconds (0.003 seconds) for the Bitcoin network to perform as many calculations as there are seconds since the birth of the universe!

In other words, in every second that passes, the above process is repeated more than 300 times!

Wow! Just WOW!

You guys seem to be into:


BIG numbers!!!!!


Wow, just wow!



Congrats on your rankening UPpity, AlcoHoDL.     Wink
600watt
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2338
Merit: 2106



View Profile
September 21, 2020, 05:57:07 AM
Merited by AlcoHoDL (1), gappie (1)

https://twitter.com/nickgiambruno/status/1307389546561179653

Quote
A trillion seconds ago was 30,000 B.C.

A quadrillion seconds ago was 32 million years ago.

A quintillion seconds ago was 32 billion years ago. (The age of the universe is 13.8 billion years.)

The computing power that secures Bitcoin is 139 quintillion calculations PER SECOND.

So, according to the above numbers, it takes only about 3 milliseconds (0.003 seconds) for the Bitcoin network to perform as many calculations as there are seconds since the birth of the universe!

In other words, in every second that passes, the above process is repeated more than 300 times!

Wow! Just WOW!


thatiswowindeed!  139 quintillion calculations per second, but only 7 transactions made in that that same time. this is the polar opposite of efficiency. it shows how much of the power of this network goes into security and protection of those 7 transactions.

we are trained for efficiency. no matter what we do, we try to do it more efficiently next time. bitcoin is different. it gives up efficiency completely to ensure maximum security. that is counter-intuitive and makes it hard to understand and is one of the reasons for the existence of shitcoinery: "my blockchain is faster.."

the bitcoin algorithm is a monster. secured by 139 quintillion calculations per 7 transactions.

if you want to build a tank the equivalent thickness of the steel used would need to be 500yards. moves slow but no weapon existing could penetrate it, not even in theory.
AlcoHoDL
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2772
Merit: 5478


Addicted to HoDLing!


View Profile
September 21, 2020, 06:01:05 AM

https://twitter.com/nickgiambruno/status/1307389546561179653

Quote
A trillion seconds ago was 30,000 B.C.

A quadrillion seconds ago was 32 million years ago.

A quintillion seconds ago was 32 billion years ago. (The age of the universe is 13.8 billion years.)

The computing power that secures Bitcoin is 139 quintillion calculations PER SECOND.

So, according to the above numbers, it takes only about 3 milliseconds (0.003 seconds) for the Bitcoin network to perform as many calculations as there are seconds since the birth of the universe!

In other words, in every second that passes, the above process is repeated more than 300 times!

Wow! Just WOW!

You guys seem to be into:

BIG numbers!!!!!

Wow, just wow!

Congrats on your rankening UPpity, AlcoHoDL.     Wink

Thanks Jay, I appreciate it.

The above result just shows the sheer computing power of the Bitcoin decentralized supercomputing entity (wow, that sounds like coming from a Terminator movie). The age of the universe comparison doesn't really have any practical usefulness though. If you spit on the ground, the saliva coming out of your mouth will contain many more atoms than the seconds since the age of the universe. So what? Doesn't really mean anything...

But such comparisons do put things into perspective, and we do like BIG numbers (especially when it comes to the BTC/USD value).  Wink
Last of the V8s
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 4393


Be a bank


View Profile
September 21, 2020, 06:03:27 AM
Merited by El duderino_ (7)

https://twitter.com/Y_deGaia/status/1307314824318197760?s=20

Quote
Just had a corporate buy request at @ReserveBitcoin influenced by the MicroStrategy news.

It's happening.

 Grin
AlcoHoDL
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2772
Merit: 5478


Addicted to HoDLing!


View Profile
September 21, 2020, 06:04:02 AM

https://twitter.com/nickgiambruno/status/1307389546561179653

Quote
A trillion seconds ago was 30,000 B.C.

A quadrillion seconds ago was 32 million years ago.

A quintillion seconds ago was 32 billion years ago. (The age of the universe is 13.8 billion years.)

The computing power that secures Bitcoin is 139 quintillion calculations PER SECOND.

So, according to the above numbers, it takes only about 3 milliseconds (0.003 seconds) for the Bitcoin network to perform as many calculations as there are seconds since the birth of the universe!

In other words, in every second that passes, the above process is repeated more than 300 times!

Wow! Just WOW!

thatiswowindeed!  139 quintillion calculations per second, but only 7 transactions made in that that same time. this is the polar opposite of efficiency. it shows how much of the power of this network goes into security and protection of those 7 transactions.

we are trained for efficiency. no matter what we do, we try to do it more efficiently next time. bitcoin is different. it gives up efficiency completely to ensure maximum security. that is counter-intuitive and makes it hard to understand and is one of the reasons for the existence of shitcoinery: "my blockchain is faster.."

the bitcoin algorithm is a monster. secured by 139 quintillion calculations per 7 transactions.

if you want to build a tank the equivalent thickness of the steel used would need to be 500yards. moves slow but no weapon existing could penetrate it, not even in theory.

What you just said is even more WOW!
OutOfMemory
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1946
Merit: 3915


Man who stares at charts (and stars, too...)


View Profile
September 21, 2020, 07:23:44 AM


thatiswowindeed!  139 quintillion calculations per second, but only 7 transactions made in that that same time. this is the polar opposite of efficiency. it shows how much of the power of this network goes into security and protection of those 7 transactions.

we are trained for efficiency. no matter what we do, we try to do it more efficiently next time. bitcoin is different. it gives up efficiency completely to ensure maximum security. that is counter-intuitive and makes it hard to understand and is one of the reasons for the existence of shitcoinery: "my blockchain is faster.."

the bitcoin algorithm is a monster. secured by 139 quintillion calculations per 7 transactions.

if you want to build a tank the equivalent thickness of the steel used would need to be 500yards. moves slow but no weapon existing could penetrate it, not even in theory.

That's a point when seeking for a valid argument in the bitcoin-gold comparison.
While some shitters are easy to move when the transaction numbers are high, bitcoins aren't.
Besides off-chain solutions and some anonymity-shitcoins (efficiency), bitcoin is THE CC for hodling and reserve (security). Combine that with the scarcity argument. It makes bitcoin extremely appropiate for institutional uses. Nobody can professionally ignore that. It's just a question of time.
The when-moon-people are just too impatient and also distracted by price charts of 2017, i expect quite a number of repetitions over the next halvening cycles until something like "price discovery" actually kicks in.  
My rookie tip: If you ever sell, don't sell it all, keep at least 10% of your corn for hodling.

EDIT: emphasized the part of the OQ i was mainly referring to.
El duderino_
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2912
Merit: 14298


“They have no clue”


View Profile
September 21, 2020, 07:45:19 AM

Congratulations AlcoHoDL, well deserved. Smiley

Indeed, very well deserved.... In a very short period of writing more as before—-> merit followed like crazy :-)

The dude a little more off...... normal going home from holiday on Thursday, was in a paradise hotel @ravello, but went home on Sunday.... Women’s and troubles..... She wasn’t ready for a bitcoiner and perhaps she was the first one to complain that I bought to much things as for myself as for her etc.... learned a lot last six months...

On the other side that was a thing that made her looking good, she wasn’t there for the wrong stuff, on the other side maybe I’m happy as well it ended, but damn why on holiday (wasn’t with a fight or anything)

First actions, installed that tinder crap for the first time in my life and it’s working as it seems  Roll Eyes
Pages: « 1 ... 27050 27051 27052 27053 27054 27055 27056 27057 27058 27059 27060 27061 27062 27063 27064 27065 27066 27067 27068 27069 27070 27071 27072 27073 27074 27075 27076 27077 27078 27079 27080 27081 27082 27083 27084 27085 27086 27087 27088 27089 27090 27091 27092 27093 27094 27095 27096 27097 27098 27099 [27100] 27101 27102 27103 27104 27105 27106 27107 27108 27109 27110 27111 27112 27113 27114 27115 27116 27117 27118 27119 27120 27121 27122 27123 27124 27125 27126 27127 27128 27129 27130 27131 27132 27133 27134 27135 27136 27137 27138 27139 27140 27141 27142 27143 27144 27145 27146 27147 27148 27149 27150 ... 34643 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!