Bitcoin Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
SauRoNZA said:
Until another Ice3X happens sure.

That place has forever and a day seemed extremely dodgy to me for some reason.

At the end of the day it’s one of those you get what you pay for vibes for me.

Being a long term HODLR the trickle savings are inconsequential to me.
Click to expand...
Are you serious? Ice3 had like 1 btc vol a day valr does 500 plus... been using them since 2019

No issues.... altcoin seems dodgy by those standards then...
 
Snyper564 said:
Are you serious? Ice3 had like 1 btc vol a day valr does 500 plus... been using them since 2019

No issues.... altcoin seems dodgy by those standards then...
Click to expand...

Oh I didn’t say it was logical.

Just never got a good vibe from them.

They also seem to make use of weird fake influencer campaigns on Twitter pretending to be real users.

Also more like 250 on average, where Luno usually does double or more, except of course when Valr runs promotional campaigns and then makes it seem like it’s the norm.

Unless I’m reading it wrong or they use some weirdly different time scale Valr did 403 BTC in the last 24H and Luno 908 BTC.

I’ll much rather stick with the bigger player with the larger financial backing.
 
Last edited:
Sensorei said:
Wrong. BTC is not hackable mainly because the cost of hash power to attack BTC and compromise other nodes to perform a sustained attack is too high. You say nodes mean nothing, but high hash power is not even needed by full nodes that do not mine and exist purely to verify that transactions are legit. Most of these are not even in China 'the big threat' where most hash rate is. Of course it would be better if BTC used less power if it could maintain the same level of security. It can't. The high energy "security argument" is part of Bitcoin by design. It's not an unfortunate side effect overlooked by the devs. It is irrefutable that a higher hash rate optimises network security.

One must understand the basics of why the cost and hash rate needs to be so high to mine a block in 10 minutes and why a shorter block time would use more energy. Obviously the faster the network grows, the faster a block will be mined unless you increase hash rate. The hash rate increasing makes the cost of an attack on BTC impractical as the network grows.
Click to expand...
In what world does restricting mining increase security? It doesn't and results in the opposite. The decentralised by design argument is also a flawed one. Anything of value is necessarily going to centralise around certain groups as we've seen with Bitcoin. You want to make it as cheap as possible to get the most diverse and decentralised network.

You're also contradicting yourself that expensive energy is needed for security but that you then don't need hashing power to verify and flag transactions. If hashing power isn't important then how do you know a node's stake and that it isn't just a clone to send illegitimate transactions through?

Sensorei said:
Ethereum Classic was hacked because the network hash rate was low enough and cheap enough for someone to control the majority of mining power. Yes more decentralisation is always good but it was easier to hack because energy cost was cheaper.
Click to expand...
Ethereum classic isn't a good example of decentralisation. The hashrate is 25TH/s vs Ethereum 635TH/s. That's less than a 20th so it's easy for someone with significant hashing power to have jumped ship. When has Ethereum undergone a 51% hack? The ETC update was to address the cost of hashing making it cheaper and possible to use old 2+3GB cards. Goes against your theory it needs to be as expensive and hard as possible.

Sensorei said:
No, you missed the part about scarcity. That is along with cost of mining is key. Perceived value of any new asset always starts with speculation and it's only worth what people think it is worth. It's not only BTC's cost of production, but along with it's limited supply that gives inflation resistant value, on top of what it offers as financial asset network. The halving every 4 years and the increase in value thereafter is no coincidence.
Click to expand...
You miss the point. If it costs less then hashing power on the network decreases making it more centralised as smaller miners withdraw. You actually need it to be more profitable to ensure a more diverse decentralised network. That indirectly goes against the argument that mining needs to be expensive.

As for the halving we see each era having less of an effect on the price and in fact if the hyperbole pattern holds it will become negative. Stands to reason as 89% of the supply has already been mined and the rest of the 11% should not have much of an effect on the price. The increases around the halvings have mostly been driven by hype so not really an argument there that it's build in.
 
Last edited:
Snyper564 said:
If you maker on valr you get paid 0.1 even better.
Click to expand...
It's 0.01% now that they reduced their fees. Still better than paying but I use them mainly because I like the look and feel and that they were the ones that got Luno to reduce their fees otherwise we'd still be paying through our noses.
 
SauRoNZA said:
Sale time! Actually thinking of cashing out my XRP to switch it.
Click to expand...

Any reason for cashing out?

A few days ago I read something about 10b coins being "burned". May be promising in the short term. I was also thinking of cashing out my xrp to convert to ada but I'm just waiting a few days to see how it plays out
 
Swa said:
In what world does restricting mining increase security? It doesn't and results in the opposite. The decentralised by design argument is also a flawed one. Anything of value is necessarily going to centralise around certain groups as we've seen with Bitcoin. You want to make it as cheap as possible to get the most diverse and decentralised network.

You're also contradicting yourself that expensive energy is needed for security but that you then don't need hashing power to verify and flag transactions. If hashing power isn't important then how do you know a node's stake and that it isn't just a clone to send illegitimate transactions through?


Ethereum classic isn't a good example of decentralisation. The hashrate is 25TH/s vs Ethereum 635TH/s. That's less than a 20th so it's easy for someone with significant hashing power to have jumped ship. When has Ethereum undergone a 51% hack? The ETC update was to address the cost of hashing making it cheaper and possible to use old 2+3GB cards. Goes against your theory it needs to be as expensive and hard as possible.


You miss the point. If it costs less then hashing power on the network decreases making it more centralised as smaller miners withdraw. You actually need it to be more profitable to ensure a more diverse decentralised network. That indirectly goes against the argument that mining needs to be expensive.

As for the halving we see each era having less of an effect on the price and in fact if the hyperbole pattern holds it will become negative. Stands to reason as 89% of the supply has already been mined and the rest of the 11% should not have much of an effect on the price. The increases around the halvings have mostly been driven by hype so not really an argument there that it's build in.
Click to expand...
Seems .like you're arguing for the sake of arguing.

Nowhere did I say restricting mining is a good thing. You need to google about the different types of nodes in the BTC network to understand this. Full nodes do not mine but add more security because each full node is an independant transaction authenticator but does not necessarily need to be a miner.

Blocks still have to be mined, so there is no restriction on mining.

No contradiction. Now you have learned that a full node doesn't need to mine Bitcoin or use expensive hashing power. A full node's function is to keep a copy of the blockchain and verify transactions by downlading without having to mine a block and be run on a cheap PC.

Your point about ETC's hashrate vs ETH just proves my point. That increased hashrate which = more energy cost is what gives more security.

You opinion on the halving's effect on BTC price is certainly in the minority. At least besides cryptonoobs who don't understand what it is and you aren't new at this. When 1 BTC's value is $300K+ in 4 years we can revisit this post. We can bet a good bottle of 18 year on it. Pick your poison.
 
MidnightZA said:
Any reason for cashing out?

A few days ago I read something about 10b coins being "burned". May be promising in the short term. I was also thinking of cashing out my xrp to convert to ada but I'm just waiting a few days to see how it plays out
Click to expand...

Would be purely for access to more Bitcoin, no other reason.

I only ever bought XRP to gamble and been riding quite high for a while.
 
Swa said:
It's 0.01% now that they reduced their fees. Still better than paying but I use them mainly because I like the look and feel and that they were the ones that got Luno to reduce their fees otherwise we'd still be paying through our noses.
Click to expand...

Luno reduced their fees because DCG bought and funded them so they no longer needed to turn a profit.

Nothing to do with Valr.
 
I preferred ICE3X. Fortunately I bought ADA and moved it off during February just before they started blocking withdrawal.

I do have a work colleague who was assisting his brother to buy crypto. All of his holdings were on ICE3X. It wasn't a small amount either.
 
Sensorei said:
Seems .like you're arguing for the sake of arguing.

Nowhere did I say restricting mining is a good thing. You need to google about the different types of nodes in the BTC network to understand this. Full nodes do not mine but add more security because each full node is an independant transaction authenticator but does not necessarily need to be a miner.

Blocks still have to be mined, so there is no restriction on mining.

No contradiction. Now you have learned that a full node doesn't need to mine Bitcoin or use expensive hashing power. A full node's function is to keep a copy of the blockchain and verify transactions by downlading without having to mine a block and be run on a cheap PC.

Your point about ETC's hashrate vs ETH just proves my point. That increased hashrate which = more energy cost is what gives more security.

You opinion on the halving's effect on BTC price is certainly in the minority. At least besides cryptonoobs who don't understand what it is and you aren't new at this. When 1 BTC's value is $300K+ in 4 years we can revisit this post. We can bet a good bottle of 18 year on it. Pick your poison.
Click to expand...
It's seems you have no real arguments because everything you say is disproven in practice.

ETC vs ETH doesn't prove your point. Over the years 2-3GB cards have been retired allowing the attack to take place. If that wasn't the case if may not have happened. ETH is running into the same problem. The original idea was to make mining expensive. Not wrt energy cost but memory. Dagger-Hashimoto is actually more a proof of memory than PoW algo. That restriction on mining has proven the wrong move. Yes it's a restriction, as is everything you mention, which just lowers network security.

BTC's value may or may not increase in value, none of us know that. But if it does it will be due to market forces, manipulated or not, and not due to any halving events. If you think logically 11% of what's left of the supply can no longer have an impact on the price and that is also no longer a minority view.
 
SauRoNZA said:
Luno reduced their fees because DCG bought and funded them so they no longer needed to turn a profit.

Nothing to do with Valr.
Click to expand...
It was purely a coincidence they lowered the fees with Valr's as the base as soon as Valr's volumes started approaching theirs?
 
Swa said:
It was purely a coincidence they lowered the fees with Valr's as the base as soon as Valr's volumes started approaching theirs?
Click to expand...

Like I said earlier the only time Valr’s volumes ever get close is when they are running promotions.

Luno’s fee reduction came shortly after DCG acquired them.

They’ve never really needed to compete with Valr.
 
SauRoNZA said:
Like I said earlier the only time Valr’s volumes ever get close is when they are running promotions.

Luno’s fee reduction came shortly after DCG acquired them.

They’ve never really needed to compete with Valr.
Click to expand...
Well I guess it's subjective and one of those things that can't be proven. I just know that it happened shortly after Valr's volumes were starting to approach theirs, whatever the reason for it was, and they were starting to become more popular. Might have happened because DCG acquired them but I just don't think it would have happened if Valr weren't having an impact.
 
Swa said:
It's seems you have no real arguments because everything you say is disproven in practice.

ETC vs ETH doesn't prove your point. Over the years 2-3GB cards have been retired allowing the attack to take place. If that wasn't the case if may not have happened. ETH is running into the same problem. The original idea was to make mining expensive. Not wrt energy cost but memory. Dagger-Hashimoto is actually more a proof of memory than PoW algo. That restriction on mining has proven the wrong move. Yes it's a restriction, as is everything you mention, which just lowers network security.

BTC's value may or may not increase in value, none of us know that. But if it does it will be due to market forces, manipulated or not, and not due to any halving events. If you think logically 11% of what's left of the supply can no longer have an impact on the price and that is also no longer a minority view.
Click to expand...
You're moving off topic and finding things to argue that have nothing to do with the discussion. You disputed my main discussion point that BTC's energy cost is an security feature required for optimal security, yet didn't now don't know the difference between BTC full nodes and mining nodes, and you claim that the number of nodes mean nothing. Out of your depth here. You talk about importance of decentralisation and how BTC is centralised, then say the number of nodes are not important, when actually the number of full BTC nodes is what makes it so decentralised. Look up the stats.

Now you're waffling on about Eth mining. Besides serving totally different purposes, Ethereum gives up some security for flexibility and Bitcoin gives up some flexibility for security. You can't have the best of both.
 
Sensorei said:
You're moving off topic and finding things to argue that have nothing to do with the discussion. You disputed my main discussion point that BTC's energy cost is an security feature required for optimal security, yet didn't now don't know the difference between BTC full nodes and mining nodes, and you claim that the number of nodes mean nothing. Out of your depth here. You talk about importance of decentralisation and how BTC is centralised, then say the number of nodes are not important, when actually the number of full BTC nodes is what makes it so decentralised. Look up the stats.

Now you're waffling on about Eth mining. Besides serving totally different purposes, Ethereum gives up some security for flexibility and Bitcoin gives up some flexibility for security. You can't have the best of both.
Click to expand...
You don't understand the argument. Expense drives centralisation as it concentrates around those who can afford it. Bitcoin tried the approach of energy intensive and it didn't work. Ethereum tried memory intensive and it didn't work.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X