Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[billyjoeallen]

I think you may be trolling however for those that may be reading your reply then please indulge further.

#1 The "hashpower" is migratory and can move in less time than it takes for you to wire funds to your

The physical bitcoin mines cannot be moved easily.  The ChiComs can nationalize them, merge the pools and double spend until we fork away from them. Then they can point at the new fork and do it again. Only forking away from SHA256 can stop them.  You can imagine the damage that will do.

[1715215798]

1715215798

[1715215798]

1715215798

[1715215798]

1715215798

[CuntChocula]

...
If you are referring to pool and network computation share of the pie than what you see are the results of pool participants that can easily direct their hardware at other locations if the need arises. That hash-power is migratory.  

The changing landscape of the infrastructure that supports bitcoin is constantly evolving and to think the old rules apply is short sighted understanding.

Lolno. The hashpower stays where electricity costs are low/government subsidized: China.

It is true that mining has been a community service for-profit business more than a self sustaining endeavor that would result in long turn profit.

Fixed that.

The sooner people recognize that mining profitably and mining to get a lions share of the daily bitcoin subsidy pool the richer the local economy in that area will be.

Chinese government doesn't subsidize electricity so that some douchebags can turn it into heat & get rich in the process. They (said douches) do not help the local economy -- ~4-5 bros run a megamine, all the profits leave the country.

For instance if a government or corporation recognized the value of mining bitcoin they would subsidies hardware development and support building infrastructures that would employ members of the local community.

You mean the very governments Bitcoiners constantly deride & seek to unseat? Yeah, good luck with that

For one example would be to use bitcoin mining as a way to subsidies operating costs of a power plant.

You don't understand how powergrids work.

Why have simply the local community pay for the electricity, why not get the global population that use BTC to pay for the power plant operating costs... Wind solar and so on. Many options have presented themselves in China but due to the ever changing landscape of the technology that is used to mine bitcoin being competitive only lasts on average 3 to 6 months before your initial investment costs are no longer recouped and you are forced to "UPGRADE".

TL;DR: ur batshit insane.

...
From what I can tell and what I perceive, is that you have a greater understanding to the whole spectrum of what Bitcoin consists of and how each part makes up the project as a hole.

However the points you harp on and the way you present them leaves me with the impressions that you are attempting to get people to ignore the important points that should be considered.

The way you go on is as a disingenuous person "pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.

That's BECAUSE you're batshit insane. Paranoiac of some sort, can't be more specific than that, I ain't no doctor.

[Andre#]

#1 majority hashpower is in China. Chinese mines can be controlled or shut down by the People's Bank or the government.

If the chinese can produce something domestically, they do.

Why "import" BTCs for dollars, from foreign miners, when they can produce them locally?

If Chinese production of BTCs can satisfy local BTC hunger (prevents USD outflows) or even be used for "export" (USD inflows), then it's a "profitable" activity for their economy.

Indeed. Personally, I don't see why China producing BTC blocks is so much different than, lets say, China producing rare earth metals. The real question is, how dependent does it make the world outside of China? How fast can production be started up if needed? With rare earth metals, it takes years. So that's tricky, you don't want that. With BTC difficulty can adapt, and miners elsewhere can take over quickly. The main vulnerability is that the difficulty will take a long time to adjust if the hashrate drops sharply. Perhaps that rule should be improved upon?

[billyjoeallen]

#1 majority hashpower is in China. Chinese mines can be controlled or shut down by the People's Bank or the government.

If the chinese can produce something domestically, they do.

Why "import" BTCs for dollars, from foreign miners, when they can produce them locally?

If Chinese production of BTCs can satisfy local BTC hunger (prevents USD outflows) or even be used for "export" (USD inflows), then it's a "profitable" activity for their economy.

Having most of the hashpower in one country, particularly one controlled by a totalitarian government, is almost as bad as having most of the hashpower in one pool.  What if the Commies decide that Bitcoin is a threat to their own new digital currency that they are looking into creating?  Protectionism isn't exactly unknown to them.

China is intentionally low profile in terms of international "incidents". They don't want to draw too much negative attention.

Even if the western elite hate bitcoin with a passion, they will (hypocritically) crucify the chinese for such an attempt. They'll make it top news that "China is panicking and is now after Bitcoin and bitcoiners". The chinese have learned the western modus operandi, they aren't idiots. They have an attitude of "maintain a low profile and steady as she goes" particularly for things related to things which aren't exclusively domestic and/or have international reach. I feel the western elite tried to exploit them with the hearn article, by putting them on the spotlight, presenting them as some kind of "problem" so that they can then try to mitigate this "perception" and thus make them react like "we are not the problem, we'll increase blocksize" to preserve their low profile. Thus they were "played" to start getting out and supporting the "Classic" in order to ...prove that "we aren't the problem, we are easy-going miners, we only want peace and stability, all these stuff that were written about us are false"...

The western elite like to play chess and play everyone like a pawn... what is the chinese miner attribute? Low profile, we don't want any problems, we do what we do and don't really bother with anyone... so with a little bit of upsetting the status quo after the Hearn article => they are placed into the spotlight as a "problem" => this activates their instict to go back to low profile and say "yeah yeah 2mb it is, just leave us alone so we can go back to low profile mode where nobody notices us". However by doing that they are shooting themselves on the foot since forking bitcoin is destructive both for them and bitcoin.

No, what we are witnessing is the Tragedy of the Commons. Chinese Miners know that the first one to defect will face considerable resistance and likely loss of profits, so they all wait for someone more brave or for Core to miraculously pull their heads out of their collective ass.  Even if they know we need a scaling solution toot sweet, they will keep on keeping on at ramming speed toward that brick wall and grab as much $$ as they can before the big crash. These are not risk-taking heroes like us early adopters. They are conformists who were taught their whole lives not to make waves.  This will end badly.

[DonQuijote]

Well some of us suspected Bitcoin Classic was a trojan horse meant to change governance and than switch to BIP101 and the numbers are indeed reflecting that --

Up at the highest rated approval we have BIP101

https://bitcoin.consider.it/BIP101

Democracy in action folks! Letting the mobs of idiots and people who want to destroy bitcoin vote for its future.... wonderful.

Is there a official poll?

[Sitarow]

I think you may be trolling however for those that may be reading your reply then please indulge further.

#1 The "hashpower" is migratory and can move in less time than it takes for you to wire funds to your

The physical bitcoin mines cannot be moved easily.  The ChiComs can nationalize them, merge the pools and double spend until we fork away from them. Then they can point at the new fork and do it again. Only forking away from SHA256 can stop them.  You can imagine the damage that will do.

Physical bitcoin mines tend to shutdown due to obsolete hardware when new technology goes online. Most recently the new ASIC chips 0.06J/GH vs the best bitmain has to offer that was recently sold at 0.25J/GH or the older hardware of 0.55J/GH.

What I was making reference to is that people who point hardware at the pools can point them to other pools rather simply. Many have backup pools pre-programmed for any downtime the primary target pool has.

[CuntChocula]

... I have lived in many and currently do live in a mostly anarcho-cap community. (The only reason it isn't completely an-cap is because we do have to pay a small tribute to for land to prevent the state from attacking us) .... but we built and maintain the roads , we built the electrical infrastructure, we built and maintain the water treatment and sewage treatment, we put out our own forest fires, we have our own private community watch program and local DRO for security, and we do not call the cops for assistance. These "public" services are all done without taxes and voluntarily without coercion. No this isn't Somalia either ...

So... Where & what is it? Or do I gotta "respect ur privacy" because jackbooted banksters are about?

[BitUsher]

Well some of us suspected Bitcoin Classic was a trojan horse meant to change governance and than switch to BIP101 and the numbers are indeed reflecting that --

Up at the highest rated approval we have BIP101

https://bitcoin.consider.it/BIP101

Democracy in action folks! Letting the mobs of idiots and people who want to destroy bitcoin vote for its future.... wonderful.

Is there a official poll?

yes , you can see it's the most requested change to Bitcoin Classic at the top.

https://bitcoin.consider.it/

[tomothy]

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7388#issuecomment-173563835

wangchun commented 8 hours ago
ACK

RBF is steal. This PR should be merged asap to prevent potential financial loss.



So,

Wangchun says:

1) 2 MB HF
2) No RBF


And core responds with... 2017 maybe we'll do something? After segwit? That's funny, cause Wanghun says segwit should be HF and after 2mb hf.

[Sitarow]

...
If you are referring to pool and network computation share of the pie than what you see are the results of pool participants that can easily direct their hardware at other locations if the need arises. That hash-power is migratory.  

The changing landscape of the infrastructure that supports bitcoin is constantly evolving and to think the old rules apply is short sighted understanding.

Lolno. The hashpower stays where electricity costs are low/government subsidized: China.

It is true that mining has been a community service for-profit business more than a self sustaining endeavor that would will "not" result in short or long turn profit with out further subsidies outside of the bitcoin rewards.

Fixed that.

Fixed that.


In all seriousness apart from the mining hardware race. Mining was a voluntary service given to use bitcoin much like any distributed computing projects that you can participate on using BOINC clients.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin


Explanation

[billyjoeallen]

Laws and contracts are useless if there is no third party with power to enforce them and settle disputes. 

That's not entirely true.  Two parties may resolve a dispute themselves. IF they believe that it is less costly than a physical confrontation.  Anarcho-capitalists also theorize that third party mediators will offer their services in dispute resolution based on commonly-accepted community norms. If Both parties can agree on a third party Dispute Resolution Organization, then they would also have to agree on mechanisms for enforcing the outcome.

War is expensive. Throughout history, you will find that it is mostly engaged in by parties that do not bear the full cost. We propose that any parties engaging in physical conflict bear the full cost of doing so, thereby discouraging the practice. 

Reputation also has an economic and social value. Credit scores are one example.  Other members of the community can enforce laws and contracts even if they are not a direct party by imposing opportunity costs on violators. An example: you defaulted on a loan, so most others will refuse to lend to you in the future, and if they do it will be at a much higher interest rate.  or another: You punch somebody in the nose and word gets out so you are no longer welcome at certain social events.

[CuntChocula]

... I have lived in many and currently do live in a mostly anarcho-cap community. (The only reason it isn't completely an-cap is because we do have to pay a small tribute to for land to prevent the state from attacking us) .... but we built and maintain the roads , we built the electrical infrastructure, we built and maintain the water treatment and sewage treatment, we put out our own forest fires, we have our own private community watch program and local DRO for security, and we do not call the cops for assistance. These "public" services are all done without taxes and voluntarily without coercion. No this isn't Somalia either ...

So... Where & what is it? Or do I gotta "respect ur privacy" because jackbooted banksters are about?

Since no answer forthcoming, assuming "ancap community" -- you and couch-surfing buddy in mom's basement. How much mom charge in "taxes"?
P.S. Just wait til she finds out you guys set the woods on fire

[inca]

Levitating just above 400.

Is this a bull market or not..

 

[CuntChocula]

In all seriousness apart from the mining hardware race. Mining was a voluntary service given to use bitcoin much like any distributed computing projects that you can participate on using BOINC clients.

Where you get such wacky ideas I'll never know...

[billyjoeallen]

I think you may be trolling however for those that may be reading your reply then please indulge further.

#1 The "hashpower" is migratory and can move in less time than it takes for you to wire funds to your

The physical bitcoin mines cannot be moved easily.  The ChiComs can nationalize them, merge the pools and double spend until we fork away from them. Then they can point at the new fork and do it again. Only forking away from SHA256 can stop them.  You can imagine the damage that will do.

Physical bitcoin mines tend to shutdown due to obsolete hardware when new technology goes online. Most recently the new ASIC chips 0.06J/GH vs the best bitmain has to offer that was recently sold at 0.25J/GH or the older hardware of 0.55J/GH.

What I was making reference to is that people who point hardware at the pools can point them to other pools rather simply. Many have backup pools pre-programmed for any downtime the primary target pool has.

That doesn't matter. If the Chicoms want to shut us down now, they can.  It is completely irrelevant how much their electricity costs because they won't be mining for profit. They will be using stolen gear to double spend and they only need to do that for a short while to destroy the market's faith in our currency. As long as they have enough asics in China to create a megapool, they can double spend and keep double spending until we fork away from SHA256 or until 51% hashpower goes online outside of China.

[Sitarow]

In all seriousness apart from the mining hardware race. Mining was a voluntary service given to use bitcoin much like any distributed computing projects that you can participate on using BOINC clients.

Where you get such wacky ideas I'll never know...

Back when CPU's was the thing everyone and their dog would run nodes and self mine before pools.

Simply before the migration from solo mining to pools and CPU's to GPU's and GPU's to FPGA and later ASIC's.

[JayJuanGee]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2016/01/19/r-i-p-bitcoin-its-time-to-move-on/?postshare=691453395532622&tid=ss_tw

Yeah, right, another superficial and poorly reasoned death pronouncement of bitcoin that selectively and poorly attempts to emphasize  negative bitcoin "facts" in order to argue it's non objective points.

[JorgeStolfi]

Deomocracy, in the sense of one person one vote for control over pooled resources, is inefficient because there is no way to communicate the intensity of one's preferences. That is one objection.

That is true, and it is one of the reasons why "democracy is the worst form of government there is".  But other methods of reching "consensus"  are not any better in that regard, often much worse; hence the other half of the saying.

While democracy does not directly account for intensity of desire, it has some indirect ways. For example, if the majority chooses laws that are too unfair to some minority, the latter may resort to crime to make ends meet, or to terrorism and other anti-social behavior, in spite of the penal deterrents against such acts.  Then the majority, if it is not too stupid, will usually ease the plight of that minority, enough to keep those reactions down to a tolerable level.

Democracy, like anything else, will function better if most of its citizens have more knowledge (especially of other societies, past and present) and more intelligence (especially the social intelligence I mentioned: awareness of the reactions that other people may have to one's own actions, and to the actions of the government.  The fair treatment of minorities, above, is an example of decision that a majority will take if it has a minimum of those qualities.  

That is one reason, by the way, why even the richest classes should want a good public universal education: because their welfare never depends only on their own qualities and actions, but always depends on the state of the society around them.  

for example, if you don't have the right to take by force from your neighbor because you need his property more than he does, then you don't have that right even if the majority of voters decide that you do.

As I said in another post, "right" is a meaningless word if there is no government to decide who has it.  Property is not a "natural right": you property is what your government thinks it is.  There is no other useful way to define it.  

You grow a crop on the land that is property of someone else: who owns the harvest?  You may have signed a contract giving 90% of the harvest to the landowner, but if the alternative was to sign the contract or die of hunger, is that any different than him taking your harvest by force?  You buy a stolen car without knowing that it was stolen; is it your property, or still the property of the victim? If you trace the history of a land plot back in time, you will almost always find that it was originally taken by force from the previous owner; so, is the present holder really the rightful owner?

In those and many other examples, there is no "natural" answer to the question.  In each case, if the property right is disputed, the laws of the country will give general rules that say who has the property rights; a court would have to decide how to apply those laws to the specific case; and a government will have to forcibly enforce the court's decision, if the affected party refuses to accept it.

[CuntChocula]

In all seriousness apart from the mining hardware race. Mining was a voluntary service given to use bitcoin much like any distributed computing projects that you can participate on using BOINC clients.

Where you get such wacky ideas I'll never know...

Back when CPU's was the thing everyone and their dog would run nodes and self mine before pools.

Simply before the migration from solo mining to pools and CPU's to GPU's and GPU's to FPGA and later ASIC's.

Satoshi never meant mining to be "a public service," hence he incentivized it. Unlike SETI@home & folding@home.
Regardless of you or I having treated it as that in the past.

“A sum of money is a leading character in this tale about people,
 just as a sum of honey might properly be a leading character in a tale about bees.”