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

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

If users are going to be put off by, say, 10-20 cents in fees, then perhaps they can buy plenty of lube and go get fucked by the banks and the paypals instead. Having 1-2-3 cents in fees and complaining that it's the end of the world if we go upwards and that it's crippling adoption, when RL banking payments are charging the hell out of us (and they are being used everyday by billions of people) and we get fucked by them constantly, is somewhat hypocritic.

Besides the main selling point of BTC shouldn't be an addiction to near-zero cost txs (which we know that is not sustainable in the long run), but rather its decentralized nature and its advantages over central banks (as a token/currency) and commercial banks in terms of controlling your money, paying without trusted 3rd parties which could withhold or confiscate your money, the non reversibility of (confirmed) txs etc etc.

It's not 20 cents in fees. It's $8 and it's being subsidized by you and me, the buyers of BTC.

And it's not decentralized with 75% of the mining in China.  We are operating under the required consent of The People's Democratic Republic of China.

The centralization of mining power doesn't ipso facto mean the centralization of Bitcoin, does it? Do you think it does?

Yes, because the Chinese government could nationalize the mines and then double spend. The Red Chinese government has a long and storied history of nationalizing industries when it suits their purpose.  

Don't you think pools would just point elsewhere?

[blunderer]

Guys, gonna break 1,000 soon, keep your eyes open!

[ImI]

nice, but its the blocks that matter and there we only see 1 block so far. pretty disappointing if you ask me.

[Fatman3001]

if you know how much power the network is consuming (about a gigawatt or 1 million kilowatts)
and you know how much power costs ($0.10/kWh)
and you now how many transactions are being processed (~4TPS)
We can figure out how much each transaction really costs unsubsidized by speculators.

@ $0.10/kWh X (1,000,000 kilowatts)= $100,000/hr

4 transactions/sec X (3600seconds/hr) = 14,400 transactions/hr

$100,000/14400 transactions = $6.94 PER TRANSACTION

Feel free to check my math, but that's about how efficient the bitcoin network is currently at maximum capacity. If there are fewer transactions, it is even less efficient.  Security and decentralization are very important factors, but this is not competitive with ACH and SWIFT, or even credit cards.  The way to increase efficiency is by massively increasing the number of transactions while keeping the total power costs almost the same.

THAT is why we want to lift the blocksize limit.  We have a very very expensive, inefficient network. Security is great, but too much armor on your armored truck will limit it's cargo capacity. 

A more correct number would be approx 400MW for the entire network and $0.05/kWh. You can't mine competitively with$0.10/kWh and efficiency is much greater than 0.71J/GH.

You don't have to take my word for it. Blockchain.info keeps a running calculation:

https://blockchain.info/stats

currently running ~$7.09/transaction.

 Then either they're wrong too or they're taking more than electricity into account. 0.71J/GH is 2 year old gear. Most of the network is from the last 7 months with 0.25J/GH or lower. There is simply not produced enough inefficient gear on the entire planet to get the numbers you have.

[Fatman3001]

nice, but its the blocks that matter and there we only see 1 block so far. pretty disappointing if you ask me.

Antpool hasn't switched yet. They're expecting to do so soon.

https://twitter.com/JihanWu/status/694080283407069184

[JayJuanGee]

... Some of that evolution can be attempted at being planned and prepared for, but with lot's of things into the future, it is not easy to predict specifics concerning how the details of development will evolve and how various incentives will continue to evolve because
such variations of future scenarios are a product of a variety of factors that are currently unknown in spite of the speculative bets that can be made concerning such future possible scenarios.

Yes, that's one fuckin sentence. And no, I'm not being a grammar fag -- you THINK in tedious run-ons, with shitloads of blank lines added for extra nuisance
Please, for everyone's sake, learn to think *concisely*. Stop it with frickin' derailed-train-of-thought poetry.
And try to cut down on LF/CR. You already owe me a scroll wheel.

Yes, you poor little thing.  You cannot understand more than 5 words strung together...    

blame me for your stupidity and your failure and refusal to attempt to engage with the substance of my posts after you made a comment about one of the earlier ones.  

Don't be upset. See my edit above below, and try to change for the better. Don't confuse thinking in meandering run-ons with complexity of thought. You're the Rube Goldberg of thought, sans sense of humor.
Rooting 4 U 2 get better.


Edit: If you're genuinely mentally ill (as in really seing a shrink/taking heavy (not antidepressant) meds), say so -- I don't look down/don't want to be cruel to the the sick. Unless I hear from you (can be in pm), am assuming simple laziness on your part.

Yes... Thank you for providing further evidence (your post) that you really have no intention to attempt to engage in any kind of substantive or meaningful discussion concerning the response that you had made to my earlier posts.

Accordingly, it seems as if you are just making an attempt at entertainment, fantasy, or maybe you are fairly weak in your attempts to engage like an adult?  Kids are like that, even sometimes after they have physically grown up.

Some time during the period that you were responding to me, for clarification purposes, I had also edited my earlier above post as follows:

Yes, you poor little thing.  You are unable or unwilling understand more than 5 words strung together...    

Maybe we should employ baby talk, so guys like you can understand a bit better?

Or maybe instead, let's blame me for your stupidity and your failure and refusal to attempt to engage with the substance of my posts after you made a comment about one of my earlier posts.  

Yeah... attempt to engage me with your bullshit post, and then cry because you are either unwilling or unable to understand my response.

[dropt]

Guys, gonna break 1,000 soon, keep your eyes open!

Stupid graphic is stupid.

This doesn't give you the breakdown, which is most important.    I have a node that is still running 0.8.  It would be included in "Core" but it really shouldn't be.

[JayJuanGee]

If users are going to be put off by, say, 10-20 cents in fees, then perhaps they can buy plenty of lube and go get fucked by the banks and the paypals instead. Having 1-2-3 cents in fees and complaining that it's the end of the world if we go upwards and that it's crippling adoption, when RL banking payments are charging the hell out of us (and they are being used everyday by billions of people) and we get fucked by them constantly, is somewhat hypocritic.

Besides the main selling point of BTC shouldn't be an addiction to near-zero cost txs (which we know that is not sustainable in the long run), but rather its decentralized nature and its advantages over central banks (as a token/currency) and commercial banks in terms of controlling your money, paying without trusted 3rd parties which could withhold or confiscate your money, the non reversibility of (confirmed) txs etc etc.

It's not 20 cents in fees. It's $8 and it's being subsidized by you and me, the buyers of BTC.

And it's not decentralized with 75% of the mining in China.  We are operating under the required consent of The People's Democratic Republic of China.

The centralization of mining power doesn't ipso facto mean the centralization of Bitcoin, does it? Do you think it does?

Yes, because the Chinese government could nationalize the mines and then double spend. The Red Chinese government has a long and storied history of nationalizing industries when it suits their purpose. 

BJA, in your attempt to spread FUD, you are taking your scenario too far.


Let's say hypothetically that the chinese took over the various bitcoin mining operations throughout the country.

What would they do next?  double spend, you say?  Don't be so fucking out there with your scenario.

First of all, it would be quite a monumental task to attempt to nationalize various bitcoin mining that is continuing to evolve, and maybe if they did it, they would have to make a coordinated effort to attempt to take them over at once, because since bitcoin is decentralized, the various miners may take various evasive actions before the chinese government could completely get control over the mining operations.

And, even if they were successful to take it over, there is no evidence that they would double spend.  That's ridiculous.

Maybe if the chinese government took over chinese mining, that would be very bullish for bitcoin... ?

 


You are crazy, dude, with your speculation!!!

[blunderer]

Guys, gonna break 1,000 soon, keep your eyes open!

Stupid graphic is stupid.

This doesn't give you the breakdown, which is most important.    I have a node that is still running 0.8.  It would be included in "Core" but it really shouldn't be.

Yeah, I'm just enjoying the growth chart. But let's give them the benefit of the doubt -- we don't need to stoop to their level and start splitting hairs about what's core, what's unupdated core etc. I'm not trying to suggest that all nodes currently running Core are a vote against Classic -- no more than a box running Win 7 is a vote against 10.

Edit @JayJuanGee: Your post gets less stupid towards the end, particularly enjoyed this part:

[rebuilder]

You don't have to take my word for it. Blockchain.info keeps a running calculation:

https://blockchain.info/stats

currently running ~$7.09/transaction.

 Then either they're wrong too or they're taking more than electricity into account. 0.71J/GH is 2 year old gear. Most of the network is from the last 7 months with 0.25J/GH or lower. There is simply not produced enough inefficient gear on the entire planet to get the numbers you have.

I believe that number is tx cost to the network as aggregate, which is basically (tx fees + block subsidy)/[# of tx] * [BTCUSD rate]. Cost to mine a block is a different issue, but would be harder to put a number to, since it depends on unknown variables.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

nice, but its the blocks that matter and there we only see 1 block so far. pretty disappointing if you ask me.

Antpool hasn't switched yet. They're expecting to do so soon.

https://twitter.com/JihanWu/status/694080283407069184

What do you think would happen in a BJA Commiepocalypse situation?

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[nioc]

Guys, gonna break 1,000 soon, keep your eyes open!

Stupid graphic is stupid.

This doesn't give you the breakdown, which is most important.    I have a node that is still running 0.8.  It would be included in "Core" but it really shouldn't be.

It's been over 1,000 all day, currently 1078 or 17.2%

https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/

I haven't kept close watch but the total # of nodes is increasing.

dropt, you would be one of the 1340 nodes listed as other.

https://bitnodes.21.co/dashboard/

Edit: fixed link

[blunderer]

nice, but its the blocks that matter and there we only see 1 block so far. pretty disappointing if you ask me.

Antpool hasn't switched yet. They're expecting to do so soon.

https://twitter.com/JihanWu/status/694080283407069184

What do you think would happen in a BJA Commiepocalypse situation?

Not as outlandish as you think. I mean, a few more of these, and US mines might have to go underground :-

Los Angeles: Hackers demand $3m bitcoin ransom from hospital to unlock vital files
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/los-angeles-hackers-demand-3m-ransom-hospital-unlock-vital-files-1543962



                 CCMF!

@noic: the chart's from https://coin.dance/nodes , they claim to be "Correct[ed] for Duplicate Nodes," so maybe that's why the #s are lower.

[billyjoeallen]

If users are going to be put off by, say, 10-20 cents in fees, then perhaps they can buy plenty of lube and go get fucked by the banks and the paypals instead. Having 1-2-3 cents in fees and complaining that it's the end of the world if we go upwards and that it's crippling adoption, when RL banking payments are charging the hell out of us (and they are being used everyday by billions of people) and we get fucked by them constantly, is somewhat hypocritic.

Besides the main selling point of BTC shouldn't be an addiction to near-zero cost txs (which we know that is not sustainable in the long run), but rather its decentralized nature and its advantages over central banks (as a token/currency) and commercial banks in terms of controlling your money, paying without trusted 3rd parties which could withhold or confiscate your money, the non reversibility of (confirmed) txs etc etc.

It's not 20 cents in fees. It's $8 and it's being subsidized by you and me, the buyers of BTC.

And it's not decentralized with 75% of the mining in China.  We are operating under the required consent of The People's Democratic Republic of China.

The centralization of mining power doesn't ipso facto mean the centralization of Bitcoin, does it? Do you think it does?

Yes, because the Chinese government could nationalize the mines and then double spend. The Red Chinese government has a long and storied history of nationalizing industries when it suits their purpose.  

Don't you think pools would just point elsewhere?

They might, but it wouldn't help. ChiComGovPool would still have the asics, so unless we forked away from SHA256, they'd still be able to mount a 51% attack.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

If users are going to be put off by, say, 10-20 cents in fees, then perhaps they can buy plenty of lube and go get fucked by the banks and the paypals instead. Having 1-2-3 cents in fees and complaining that it's the end of the world if we go upwards and that it's crippling adoption, when RL banking payments are charging the hell out of us (and they are being used everyday by billions of people) and we get fucked by them constantly, is somewhat hypocritic.

Besides the main selling point of BTC shouldn't be an addiction to near-zero cost txs (which we know that is not sustainable in the long run), but rather its decentralized nature and its advantages over central banks (as a token/currency) and commercial banks in terms of controlling your money, paying without trusted 3rd parties which could withhold or confiscate your money, the non reversibility of (confirmed) txs etc etc.

It's not 20 cents in fees. It's $8 and it's being subsidized by you and me, the buyers of BTC.

And it's not decentralized with 75% of the mining in China.  We are operating under the required consent of The People's Democratic Republic of China.

The centralization of mining power doesn't ipso facto mean the centralization of Bitcoin, does it? Do you think it does?

Yes, because the Chinese government could nationalize the mines and then double spend. The Red Chinese government has a long and storied history of nationalizing industries when it suits their purpose.  

Don't you think pools would just point elsewhere?

They might, but it wouldn't help. ChiComGovPool would still have the asics, so unless we forked away from SHA256, they'd still be able to mount a 51% attack.

Sha256 is old hat anyway.

[nioc]

@noic: the chart's from https://coin.dance/nodes , they claim to be "Correct[ed] for Duplicate Nodes," so maybe that's why the #s are lower.

Thanks.

Either way the percentages for classic are virtually the same, 17.3% vs 17.8%

Disclaimer:  I have a piece of shit for a computer and therefore don't run a node.

Disclaimer:  I have an unpaid signature.

[bargainbin]

...
Don't you think pools would just point elsewhere?

They might, but it wouldn't help. ChiComGovPool would still have the asics, so unless we forked away from SHA256, they'd still be able to mount a 51% attack.

He might be confusing a huge factory farm passing itself of as two different pools (easy) with being able to actually hide the factory farm (drawing 999gadzigawatt/hr and having a thermal footprint of an erupting volcano) from the government.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

...
Don't you think pools would just point elsewhere?

They might, but it wouldn't help. ChiComGovPool would still have the asics, so unless we forked away from SHA256, they'd still be able to mount a 51% attack.

He might be confusing a huge factory farm passing itself of as two different pools (easy) with being able to actually hide the factory farm (drawing 999gadzigawatt/hr and having a thermal footprint of an erupting volcano) from the government.

I might..

[bargainbin]

^^