Bitcoin Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ah I see where you're coming from. You're thinking that as energy usage increases so does hashrate. Yes, that is true. But it's not a feature but rather a consequence of the inverse. Energy usage is an impediment and not an enabler. The reason the hashrate is growing is because the price is going up so more people find it profitable above the expense. Make it less expensive to mine and you have the exact same thing.

The energy requirement isn't one that should be used as an argument as even if it was the plan it hasn't materialised. Bitcoin isn't more decentralised as a result but in fact highly centralised.

The argument for justification, if any, should rather be that it's not something that matters except for the person producing the energy and the one using it.
 
Swa said:
Ah I see where you're coming from. You're thinking that as energy usage increases so does hashrate. Yes, that is true. But it's not a feature but rather a consequence of the inverse. Energy usage is an impediment and not an enabler. The reason the hashrate is growing is because the price is going up so more people find it profitable above the expense. Make it less expensive to mine and you have the exact same thing.

The energy requirement isn't one that should be used as an argument as even if it was the plan it hasn't materialised. Bitcoin isn't more decentralised as a result but in fact highly centralised.

The argument for justification, if any, should rather be that it's not something that matters except for the person producing the energy and the one using it. I never stated
Click to expand...
You're arguing if the chicken came before the egg. Makes no difference.

If the electricity cost is too high, then it's not feasible for an attacker to gain more than 50% of the network’s hashrate. You're ignoring the importance of that. It's not supposed to be become less expensive. It is precisely a security feature as has been stated by core devs.

Highly centralised relative to what? As the hash rate increases so does the security. Despite the concerns about more than half of mining hash power being in China, because its the job of the full nodes on the network to verify the transactions, and miners are a just subset of that. It has the biggest network with about 10000 full nodes active around the world at any time. Very few miners are full nodes. So it's network architecture and it's decentralised leadership makes it the most decentralised crypto. If you're looking just at the mining then Ethereum is maybe slightly more decentralised in that aspect. But that is only a piece of the puzzle.
 
Last edited:
That and a few other of his other recent purchases could easily be underwater for years now.
I think we might see 25k in the next month and 15k lowest point over the next year if there is a 2017 repeat.
 
flytek said:
That and a few other of his other recent purchases could easily be underwater for years now.
I think we might see 25k in the next month and 15k lowest point over the next year if there is a 2017 repeat.
Click to expand...

It would help if you actually read the published doc on the most recent purchase. Microstrategy is still sitting in fat profit even if we were to assume they just bought and did nothing with it which I highly doubt.

"On May 18, 2021, MicroStrategy Incorporated (the “Company”) announced that it had purchased approximately 229 bitcoins for $10.0 million in cash, at an average price of approximately $43,663 per bitcoin, inclusive of fees and expenses. As of May 18, 2021, the Company holds approximately 92,079 bitcoins that were acquired at an aggregate purchase price of $2.251 billion and an average purchase price of approximately $24,450 per bitcoin, inclusive of fees and expenses."
 
flytek said:
That and a few other of his other recent purchases could easily be underwater for years now.
I think we might see 25k in the next month and 15k lowest point over the next year if there is a 2017 repeat.
Click to expand...
We live in hope.
 
John Tempus said:
It would help if you actually read the published doc on the most recent purchase. Microstrategy is still sitting in fat profit even if we were to assume they just bought and did nothing with it which I highly doubt.

"On May 18, 2021, MicroStrategy Incorporated (the “Company”) announced that it had purchased approximately 229 bitcoins for $10.0 million in cash, at an average price of approximately $43,663 per bitcoin, inclusive of fees and expenses. As of May 18, 2021, the Company holds approximately 92,079 bitcoins that were acquired at an aggregate purchase price of $2.251 billion and an average purchase price of approximately $24,450 per bitcoin, inclusive of fees and expenses."
Click to expand...
I specifically said some of the recent purchases...like the one at 52k and this one at 43k. His average of 24k might look expensive for the next few years and could easily be underwater until the next great bubble.
 
Sensorei said:
Patience pays off. I was pretty lucky. I got back in 50% at 73.2c and 50% at 69c, 0.4c from the bottom. Fibonacci retracement worked to the T!

$Matic couldn't care less about BTC dumping now. o_O

View attachment 1067387
Click to expand...
It's basically vertical today. Is there an indicator you can use when it's green only?
 
Last edited:
humbledryer said:
It's basically vertical today. Is there an indicator you can use when it's green only?
Click to expand...
I'm winging it. Taken a fair amount of profit at at $2,00 and $2,50. I thought $matic would moon but wtf! Take some profits but definitely leave a fair portion long term.
 
Last edited:
Sensorei said:
You're arguing if the chicken came before the egg. Makes no difference.

If the electricity cost is too high, then it's not feasible for an attacker to gain more than 50% of the network’s hashrate. You're ignoring the importance of that. It's not supposed to be become less expensive. It is precisely a security feature as has been stated by core devs.
Click to expand...
The part you're leaving out is that the higher the cost the more it will concentrate around those who can afford it. Why you keep on failing to realise and admit this is just beyond me. It does not matter what the claimed intent is, it's proven a complete and utter failure.

Sensorei said:
Highly centralised relative to what? As the hash rate increases so does the security. Despite the concerns about more than half of mining hash power being in China, because its the job of the full nodes on the network to verify the transactions, and miners are a just subset of that. It has the biggest network with about 10000 full nodes active around the world at any time. Very few miners are full nodes. So it's network architecture and it's decentralised leadership makes it the most decentralised crypto. If you're looking just at the mining then Ethereum is maybe slightly more decentralised in that aspect. But that is only a piece of the puzzle.
Click to expand...
It does not matter relative to what. I've just shown you how a single blackout resulted in a loss of 35% of the mining power. That is NOT decentralised no matter against what you measure it. You keep referring to hashing power and network size but ignore how a lot of it is in the hands of big mining companies.

Your argument started that it needs to be expensive to ensure network security. I explained and showed how that is not the case. You then tried to flip the goalpost around saying this doesn't matter in fact because of the nodes. So which one is it now? It needs to be expensive for security or it can get by without that?
 
Is there any chance of a 1 Gwei ETH transfer to go through? 10 Gwei perhaps?
 
Swa said:
The part you're leaving out is that the higher the cost the more it will concentrate around those who can afford it. Why you keep on failing to realise and admit this is just beyond me. It does not matter what the claimed intent is, it's proven a complete and utter failure.


It does not matter relative to what. I've just shown you how a single blackout resulted in a loss of 35% of the mining power. That is NOT decentralised no matter against what you measure it. You keep referring to hashing power and network size but ignore how a lot of it is in the hands of big mining companies.

Your argument started that it needs to be expensive to ensure network security. I explained and showed how that is not the case. You then tried to flip the goalpost around saying this doesn't matter in fact because of the nodes. So which one is it now? It needs to be expensive for security or it can get by without that?
Click to expand...
You're are clearly out of your depth here and don't understand how the Bitcoin network operates. It's not supposed to be a cheap payment system. Security is the first priority, not transaction cost or speed.

You said BTC is highly centralised, and when asked relative to what you say it doesn't matter. Schoolboy response. You can't name a competing store of and transfer of value blockchain that is less decentralised and more secure. You started off by suggesting that Ethereum was with your initial response which obviously was a big fail. Until BTC improves or something better comes along BTC is the best at what it aims to do.

You've shown me nothing. BTC's level of security is reliant on BOTH it's energy use and the amount of full nodes. It's not either or. Even with a 35% mining pool blackout the amount of full nodes on the network still makes BTC the most secure blockchain, and the remaining 65% hash rate is still enough to made BTC impossible to 51% attack.

You don't understand that in the case of a temporary mining outage the full nodes (which are extremely decentralised as shown in the link I posted before) ensure that transaction authentication is not compromised. Yes, there is a temporary increased congestion and increase in fees, but the size of the network ensures that BTC can handle even a 35% mining outage without compromising security.

Yes so over 60% of BTC's hash rate is concentrated in China. Obviously not ideal, but not at all a significant security threat when only 2% of full nodes are located in China. These exist to secure the network - verify transactions and blocks, and send them to other nodes including miners. Very few of these are mining pools. Get your head around that and the importance of that. You've been buying into uninformed mainstream media narrative.

I am not here to spoon feed you and educate you. You've been here how long but haven't bothered to learn any of this? Hopefully this wasn't all a waste of my time and some others might have learned something here. There is Bitcoin.org and google if you want to learn more.
 
Last edited:
flytek said:
I specifically said some of the recent purchases...like the one at 52k and this one at 43k. His average of 24k might look expensive for the next few years and could easily be underwater until the next great bubble.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand averages if you ignore the average purchasing price. It doesn't matter if they buy 100 BTC @ $100k if their overall portfolio average price is $10k per BTC, they are still 10x on their purchase.

A bit dumbfounded that you actually tried to defend your logic using their recent purchases but not everyone can do basic math in this country so I am not shocked.

That aside I also noted that given their average price on its own still big in profit it does not mean they are just sitting on the coin and not actively trading / lending etc. which could be additional gains for them in the short term.
 
Wow man can't you try a little harder to be a bigger a55hole?
 
flytek said:
Wow man can't you try a little harder to be a bigger a55hole?
Click to expand...

You opened the door after I made it clear their average price is still big in profit , you then doubled down defending your position as if what I stated is not fact.

If you are going to double down on idiotic logic, I will correct you until it sinks in. If you think that is being an ******* then so be it.

Back and forth but at least I am sure you understand now that they are not under water, they are in profit and thus not much more to add to this.
 
NarrowBandFtw said:
we need the likes of @Snyper564 @Sensorei @Thor to post a disclaimer of it not being financial advice and then tell us when to buy BTC :sneaky:
Click to expand...
For my not financial advice :)

Think we heading towards USD20k-USD25k and it will settle there (till the next moon landing). Might take weeks or months.

This is my 2 sats
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X