Bitcoin Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Swa said:
That it will get it to break off from the markets and cause it to hit an ath?
Click to expand...
Needs massive liquidity to fill the whale longs. A market dump would do it. BTC has been moving with the markets since day one. Whats the point of it if it remains stuck moving up and down with the markets? Its meant to move away. It wasn't around for the 2008 crash, the next one(either now if it happens, or may still be years away) it has to make a move and be on its own or its kind of pointless(just to be clearer, btc/crypto is an evolution of traditional markets and currencies, if it remains 'pegged' and moves with those markets up and downs, it may as well just be another asset/stock on the traditional market). With the big players dumping billions into it, we now need a massive sell off to fuel it all.
Thats IF it happens, I've expected markets to crash for years and nothings happened, but if things like this continue
united-states-inflation-cpi-png.1087087

E38FKClX0AMC22I


another month or two and its time to be planning the 100x longs for that few second wick down :ROFL:
 
Last edited:
Temujin said:
Needs massive liquidity to fill the whale longs. A market dump would do it. BTC has been moving with the markets since day one. Whats the point of it if it remains stuck moving up and down with the markets? Its meant to move away. It wasn't around for the 2008 crash, the next one(either now if it happens, or may still be years away) it has to make a move and be on its own or its kind of pointless(just to be clearer, btc/crypto is an evolution of traditional markets and currencies, if it remains 'pegged' and moves with those markets up and downs, it may as well just be another asset/stock on the traditional market). With the big players dumping billions into it, we now need a massive sell off to fuel it all.
Thats IF it happens, I've expected markets to crash for years and nothings happened, but if things like this continue
united-states-inflation-cpi-png.1087087

E38FKClX0AMC22I


another month or two and its time to be planning the 100x longs for that few second wick down :ROFL:
Click to expand...
Not quite sure what you mean by a market dump filling the whale longs. But yeah I agree with that. The only problem is that Bitcoin has been pegged to the market and I'm not convinced that will change soon if ever. If anything I think we've seen that it's more just another part of the traditional market than a replacement for it.

I'd rather see crypto as a whole decouple itself from Bitcoin. I don't want to trade BTC when trading ETC then I might as well be trading BTC.
 
Swa said:
Not quite sure what you mean by a market dump filling the whale longs. But yeah I agree with that. The only problem is that Bitcoin has been pegged to the market and I'm not convinced that will change soon if ever. If anything I think we've seen that it's more just another part of the traditional market than a replacement for it.

I'd rather see crypto as a whole decouple itself from Bitcoin. I don't want to trade BTC when trading ETC then I might as well be trading BTC.
Click to expand...
Its just transfering the wealth... the big whales who want to trade eg 25x leverage or something need to fill 10/100s of billions worth of orders, only way to do that is when market is crashing and in full panic mode, retail sells straight into them, and we get a 10-15k wick in seconds, longs liquidated, late shorts liquidated, all fuel
 
Swa said:
Whatever dude. You're continually shifting arguments and goalposts because you don't understand the concepts at play.

You do not understand that losing 35% mining power isn't a measure that the network is still functioning securely but rather an indictment that over a third of hashing power is concentrated in a small area and possibly with one or two individuals. That is not decentralised but continue seeing things in your own light.

You do not understand security in an absolute sense so you continually ask less secure against what. You are clearly the one out of your depth here but please continue on.
Click to expand...
Give it up. You lost this discussion 3 weeks ago when you couldn't respond to my points that I called you out on in the last post, just like the post before. I addressed each one of your points and crushed your argument.

You need to learn about BTC's security margin and how it adjusts based on hashrate, which increases energy requirements. Satoshi designed it that way, and how it also makes it completely unprofitable for any mining entity to try to compromise the network even if they have 35% of the hashrate pooled. Plus the added security function of 'non mining' full nodes which are extremely decentralised with only 2% in China. Satoshi wrote about this in the whitepaper - The security margin ensures that it is way more profitable to play by the rules than than to try to attack the network. No blockchain can be impossible to to attack, but the energy requirements and potential loss in earnings from compromising the network make it too expensive to attack $BTC.

No network or blockchain can claim to be 100% secure. Obvious fact if you've worked in the field. So bullshit, it IS all relative, and BTC is still the most secure and decentralised public blockchain.
 
Last edited:
Sensorei said:
Give it up. You lost this discussion 3 weeks ago when you couldn't respond to my points that I called you out on in the last post, just like the post before. I addressed each one of your points and crushed your argument.

You need to learn about BTC's security margin and how it adjusts based on hashrate, which increases energy requirements. Satoshi designed it that way, and how it also makes it completely unprofitable for any mining entity to try to compromise the network even if they have 35% of the hashrate pooled. Plus the added security function of 'non mining' full nodes which are extremely decentralised with only 2% in China. Satoshi wrote about this in the whitepaper - The security margin ensures that it is way more profitable to play by the rules than than to try to attack the network. No blockchain can be impossible to to attack, but the energy requirements and potential loss in earnings from compromising the network make it too expensive to attack $BTC.

No network or blockchain can claim to be 100% secure. Obvious fact if you've worked in the field. So bullshit, it IS all relative, and BTC is still the most secure and decentralised public blockchain.
Click to expand...
Dude, you keep flip flopping the arguments. You claimed it needs to be energy intensive to be secure. Then you claimed in doesn't matter because of the nodes. You can't have both arguments but you can't even realise this. Nodes are irrelevant and don't matter. They are just a red herring. They do not change whether the network is more or less secure based on energy usage so don't add to the argument. You never won anything because you can't stick to an argument so we keep going in circles.

Again, 35% of mining concentrated around one or a few entities in one geographic area. That is not decentralised and secure but highly centralised. You have not disproven that but seem unable to even realise it.

A house is more secure with a wall. It does not matter against what. It's not more secure against anything, it's just more secure period. You keep asking like a parrot "against what" because you're unable to understand security in the absolute sense. This isn't Tom's bloody hardware comparisons. One more time it's not about comparisons. It would be more secure and decentralised if it was less energy intensive.
 
images (4).jpg
I think we'll be okay... I mean... Unless someone shuts down Europe. Or deletes America.
 
Swa said:
Dude, you keep flip flopping the arguments. You claimed it needs to be energy intensive to be secure. Then you claimed in doesn't matter because of the nodes. You can't have both arguments but you can't even realise this. Nodes are irrelevant and don't matter. They are just a red herring. They do not change whether the network is more or less secure based on energy usage so don't add to the argument. You never won anything because you can't stick to an argument so we keep going in circles.

Again, 35% of mining concentrated around one or a few entities in one geographic area. That is not decentralised and secure but highly centralised. You have not disproven that but seem unable to even realise it.

A house is more secure with a wall. It does not matter against what. It's not more secure against anything, it's just more secure period. You keep asking like a parrot "against what" because you're unable to understand security in the absolute sense. This isn't Tom's bloody hardware comparisons. One more time it's not about comparisons. It would be more secure and decentralised if it was less energy intensive.
Click to expand...
I never said it doesn't matter. You're twisting my words. It doesn't matter if hashrate is concentrated in one area. It poses no legitimate threat. You need to understand why.

You don't understand the different functions nodes and miners have on the btc blockchain, and that the necessity for high energy consumption for mining if you want optimal security, is separate from the essential function full nodes perform which is authenticating blocks and transactions after they are mined and adding them to the blockchain. Mining nodes can not add malicious blocks to the blockchain because of full nodes.

Miners need to forward mined blocks to full nodes after they mine and validate them, which are highly decentralised (10,000 of them), for additional validation. Even with 51% mining hashrate they would not have anywhere close to 51% of full nodes for final validation of double spend malicious transactions. So your mining concentration causing a centralised security risk is debunked. Full nodes ultimately maintain the network.

If BTC suddenly lost half of it's hashing power the network would be slower and transaction costs would go up until the next 14 day security margin adjustment, but it would not pose any significant security threat to a 51% attack because the 10,000 full nodes around the world are not affected by mining blackouts.

Additionally like I said, the security margin ensures that it is more profitable to play by the rules than than to try to attack the network.

I should start charging you for these lessons.

Swa said:
One more time it's not about comparisons. It would be more secure and decentralised if it was less energy intensive.
Click to expand...
If you don't understand that higher hashrate = better security then you are really clueless. As hashrate increases energy requirements increase, as does the cost to attack the network. The higher the cost of an attack the less likely it is to happen. This is not even up for debate at schoolboy level. If authentication was only the responsibility of miners then this would obviously be a problem because they would be in control, but they are not.
 
Last edited:
So er, should I be trading my ETH for BTC?

Bitcoin does seem stronger that ETH in the last week.
 
Sensorei said:
If the markets crash then there is no crypto bull market and it's time to get ready to buy. Look at this chart of the S&P500. It's screwed. Even if you aren't a trader you can see its getting right near the end of the bearish rising wedge pattern which is the very latest that we should see decisive price action, and it won't continue going up... Rising wedges generally dump hard and it looks like it must break by around end of June. It JUST closed inside today. Thoughts?

View attachment 1072877
Click to expand...

US stock markets started dumping on the 16th, taking crypto down with it from BTC's recovery over $40K. The S&P 500 bearish rising wedge I warned a month ago about broke down and there needs to be a reversal fast (unlikely) otherwise things will get very bloody.

First daily close below the trend line that started in March 2020...Screen Shot 2021-06-19 at 01.43.43.png
 
Back down to this price level...wonder if it's gonna break lower or what.

price.png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X