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

[jbreher]

Preference for the BSV protocol != 'Faketoshi-apologia' (WhateverTF that might be).

My first encounter with you was in a thread focused on Craig Wright’s grand-scale identity theft, not technical issues.

“Faketoshi-apologia” == this, inter alia:

Wright’s theft of Satoshi’s identity is factually false,

For this to be true, it would require facts not yet entered into evidence. Sure, you have a mountain of circumstantial evidence, but from a logical standpoint, not conclusive.

If, tomorrow, I were to claim that Faketoshi “verified” a signature for me (!) on the same basis as his “verification” for Gavin, then that would leave only two realistic possibilities:  Either (1) I am maliciously lying with the intent to support Faketoshi in a scam, or (2) Bitcoin Core developer and technical forum moderator Andrew Chow is himself so incompetent that he said the foregoing about someone who doesn’t even know how properly to verify a digital signature.

Your set of possibilities omits a third possibility. And that would be that "faketoshi" actually did verify a signature for you. You evidently believe this to be "unrealistic". However, the very framing of the question in this manner precludes the scant -- though actually real -- possibility.

Yup. And you've also quoted me in all that need be said about that:
"For this to be true, it would require facts not yet entered into evidence. Sure, you have a mountain of circumstantial evidence, but from a logical standpoint, not conclusive."

Faketoshi-apologia? Hardly.

With just a bit of digging, I also found you on record defaming Segwit’s security with the usual nonsense.  I have sufficient technical competence to know that it is indeed nonsense.  (That is why I am happy to keep my life savings in Segwit-native coins which I cannot afford to lose, which I would not entrust to unreliable technology.)  It is not only a matter of disagreement about whether or not Segwit is a practical improvement:  You’ve said things that are factually false, which I myself know to be factually false (not just because someone else said so), and which have been debunked so many times in such excruciating detail that I cannot imagine how any intelligent person can believe them sincerely.

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?

And that entire matter of starting a brigaded neg campaign against me. Not like it hurt me in any way, but that's just fucking rude.

I’ll give you this:  You are not a garden-variety BSVer, the type who either lacks intelligence or has a few loose screws (or both).  By process of elimination, that is why I called you a liar.  

Right. Then proceeded with a litany of 'examples' to 'support' your claim, in which I lie in exactly 0% thereof. You asswipe.

If Blockalypse II comes and goes without the same sort of reduction in BTC Dominance that accompanied Blockalypse I, I'll likely acquiesce. In the same sense that I have waved goodbye to the sonics of 2" 30 ips tape. But repudiate the better design? Ain't gonna happen.

jbreher, what did you mean by “sonics”?  

The subjective pleasure or displeasure -- as sensed psychoacoustically -- imparted by a particular music recording technology.

The question is actually significant here.

For those who are unfamiliar with high-fidelity audio reproduction, I should briefly explain:  There is a certain type of man who is unalterably certain of the superiority of analogue audio recording technology—stereotypically, vinyl records.  It does not matter how often you explain the Nyquist Theorem.  It does not matter if you use absurdly high-precision scientific instruments to measure audio differences far too small for humans to be capable of hearing, which invariably show that good digital equipment is hands-down superior to the quality of the best analogue device ever made.  It does not matter if you perform empirical double-blind listening tests in anechoic chambers.  And the problem is not stupidity, per se.  It is tantamount to a religion.

That's a lot of blah blah blah dancing right past what really matters. You don't need to lecture me in Nyquist's theorem. I am a degreed electrical engineer and applied mathematician. But your blanket statement of superiority conveniently shoots right past the question of 'superior at _what_, exactly? The field of music production is a corner of the field of commercial art. And art is not measured by scientific instruments. It is measured by the effect it has upon each listener's emotions.

If the above quote was intended to imply that 2" 30 ips tape has superior audio fidelity to digital, in the sense of transparent reproduction, then I have just accidentally solved the mystery of jbreher!

So sad for you that the point flew right over your head.

On the other other hand, I don’t think that anybody ever said that about 2" (!) 30 ips (!!) tape.  That seems pretty clearly aimed at maximal quality, not audible distortions.

You've obviously no experience in the production processes of popular music - where 2" 30 ips tape used to be the norm. True, it has largely been supplanted by digital production processes. But this is widely considered a production workflow efficiency driven decision. Employing 2" 30 ips analog tape for pop productions is still largely considered in professional circles as 'going the extra mile' in pursuit of improved sonics.

[1713603373]

1713603373

[1713603373]

1713603373

[philipma1957]

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.

[jbreher]

**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?

[jbreher]

jbreher probably agrees with rolling, except for the relished fantasy part.  Of course, his solution will be to increase the blocksize to the point that ordinary people cannot run nodes.  He is on record as alleging that non-mining validators are useless [emphasis added by jbreher, as that is quite clearly NOT what I wrote], anyway.

For example; boldface is his:

You are delusional. I have demonstrated over and over again that the count of non-mining validators is a powerless metric in regards to Bitcoin consensus.

[...]

A count of non-mining validators has fuck-all to do with a measure of the economic majority.

https://youtu.be/0Rl9Cxc7uZA?t=24

No. No you do not. Obviously. Can't even understand simple English. Or maybe you are lying by misattributing words to me that I clearly have not uttered. Fucking liars running around starting brigaded neg campaigns based upon unfounded allegations that they are incapable of even understanding. In case it is not clear, I am referring to you, nullius (you fucking liar).

For my part, I think that most transactions will and should be off-chain.  

Mmm Hmm. And when most people seldom or never make an on-chain transaction, where is the incentive for them to run a non-mining validator?

Anybody who does not understand this should try, just try running Bitcoin and syncing mainnet on old and/or very cheap hardware.  You will soon wish for smaller blocks.  If you have a bit of vision, thereupon contemplate network effects and the resistance to centralization brought by keeping full nodes within the reach of people who are not rich.

False inflammatory statement. I run several non-mining validators on the same machine. That I bought years ago. Used. And added an SSD thereto. Total cost: about $400.

One might say 'even that is too much money'. As compared to a $1000 tx fee? Riiiight.

[DaRude]

**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+

[bitserve]

**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).

On an unrelated note: Congrats @AlcoHoDL!

[Hueristic]

Congratulations AlcoHoDL, well deserved.

[jbreher]

**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]

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]

**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]

**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]

**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]

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]

charts..charts everywhere

#dyor
1h


1h


4h


stuck in the middle with you
D


W

#manuforti

[JayJuanGee]

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]

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.

Thanks guys! And equally to all WO members!

As Jimbo would say... Go WO, go!

[bitebits]

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

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]

Satoshi’s actual vision:

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]

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

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]

[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.)

 

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

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.