Well if you don’t understand me why are you answering ?
It’s not urgent that you answer either.
I have. You made efforts to misrepresent what I was saying. Lesson learnt, no point arguing with you.
No. That is a strawman, I have no reason to even consider it.
Its a strawman because you can’t prove that is what I wrote. For the reason, that it is not “my narrative”. It’s yours.
A perfect example of how you are making efforts to misrepresent what I am saying.
To you. Indeed. You don’t even know what a ponzi is, you can’t even accept that it might be one.
That’s why you are a fanatic. So a lost cause. You use more energy to misrepresent my words than to actually try to understand them. You are dishonest, claiming things are FACTS when you can’t even prove the numerous times you mis-attributed a claim to me.
Sorry, you’ve totally confused me and I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Hopefully you have learned your lesson, never try to bully someone into believing your narrative especially if you don’t even know what you’re talking about. present widely accepted facts and opinions and idea’s and then discuss the logic of it and leave it at that.
So when I said “Don’t invest in BTC if you don’t understand it and you dont have crypto or trading experience” Is that a lie? The only issue is that people like you don’t listen to that sound logic and then go and lose a stack of money.
Obviously it’s not good at all that so many lost money and I feel bad for them, there is a saying for how people should conduct themselves in life it’s: “Stay in your lane” which means things like if you really don’t know what you’re doing, Stop, and do something where you do know what you’re doing.
An example of “Stay In your Lane” I tried to fix a mobile phone for a customer and ended up cracking the screen, I paid for a new screen and everything was fine, but it taught me to stick with what I know, which is repairing Laptops and Desktops, never again will I attempt to fix a phone.
One thing you won’t know about me is I am a righteous person, I’d rather see BTC go down to £1000 than earn from an inexperienced unsuspecting investor, that just isn’t my way of doing business. I will automatically dislike anyone promoting earning money in this way.
I will always promote a real and true BTC value even if it’s £500, I never ever want to live my life blind to the sufferation I could cause, I have no interest in a “pumped” value where investors have been lied to and tricked. Show me the real value and I will help to build it in an ethical way.
My view is and will always be: Go ahead and earn money from investors but make sure they have a full 100% understanding of what they are investing in and what issues could/will arise.
The best way to think of BTC is as an asset which should belong to a crypto exchange, I purchased £100 in BTC just a few days ago to use for a transaction, I was charged around £3.50 to buy and send the BTC to a retailer which I am totally happy with paying as would everyone else be if they did the same transaction. Now…Imagine 2 Billion people doing the same £100 BTC transaction regularly, HOW MANY SETS OF £3.50 fees is that??? this is all I am excited about, I can’t speak for anyone else. This is a description of a good use for BTC where nobody is getting conned, the issue is that it may take 30 years to get to this scenario.
Also in this scenario the retailer also deals with the crypto exchange, so not only is the exchange getting my £3.50 for the £100 BTC transaction from me, they also charge the retailer a fee when they change it back to fiat. So billions of people doing this generates an unimaginable amount of money in fees, all parties happy, nobody getting conned or lied to.
With this volume (billions of genuine BTC users), traders can then come buy a stack of BTC, wait a few days/weeks and make a few pounds profit on their trade in a reasonable ethical way which doesn’t cause a poor man or woman to lose their life savings.
If we analyse my scenario BTC transaction we will see that it seems the trader and myself simply “leased” the BTC from a crypto exchange where the BTC ended up back at a crypto exchange. Yes, I’m starting to think BTC really should all be in a crypto exchange, since the trader and myself only seem to be interested in fiat, or the end result to conclude the trade will be the action of the retailer getting fiat from bearing tokens to an exchange. The fiat seems to be the end goal.
Every system that seeks consensus about something has it’s weaknesses in one or the other way. If you the consensus is created centrally it is extremely weak to getting corrupted for example.
Bitcoin uses energy to secure consensus about transaction history because energy can not be created out of thin air. It’s a real world resource that has to be spent on top of the hardware required to calculate the hashes.
The amount of hardware and energy it would require to attack the Bitcoin blockchain may have been trivial in the past. But today it is an insane amount of money that would have to be invested to even attempt an attack.
The scope of what such an attack can do is very limited. The only thing they could do is stall the blockchain by mining empty blocks, or if they have vastly more than 51% they could try to reorganize older blocks and attempt a double spend on one of their own transactions they remove from the history.
And it’s not like the actual users of Bitcoin are without counter measures. What people fail to understand is that the Bitcoin network is also social contract of people who follow the protocol by means of interacting with each other via the node software. If there is an attack, the pressure would be high enough to react and by some means kick the bastards out.
We could for example introduce a new rule in the software that just ignores certain blocks. People would then have the option to update to this modified node software and in this instance the chain would split and we would basically fork the attacker off.
Before that, people would probably try to counter the attack by adding more hardware and mining themselves.
The nuclear option would be to change the hash algorithm and revert back to GPU mining, but this would also make the honest miners ASIC worthless.
There are various other ideas how to counter such an attack, like adding an Prove of Stake element that can be slashed, etc.
People are thinking about this scenarios for over 13 years, meanwhile it gets more an more unlikely that something like that will ever happen.
I hear you use the word neutrality a lot, I don’t think you know what it means.
I understand that you want to look like the “cool kid” but industries and countries don’t work that way, there is governance and responsibility. BTC has the hallmark of fraud, the “Wolf of Wallstreet” said it and keeps saying it even when he’s profiting from it.
https://www.cbr.ru/eng/press/event/?id=13981
Do you think a smart person would say “Hey, look at how regulators of the largest industries (G7,G8,G20) are interested in thinks like Know Your Customer?”. No what you say is completely against what the largest industrial nations are working on. Even recently, it did not change in the advantage of “privacy”. It changes in the direction of responsibility and identity.
Even Russia… even Russia… oh man, BTC are on the way to irrelevance… Just like NETBIOS, but on the bright side, you can still use NETBIOS over TCP/IP.
I guess it’s a secret plan, but if the BTC community want to share how it’s going to undo all these regulations, I’m all ears, but I guess you’ll just have to spam more to bury the reality.
I’m the cool kid, and about the other point… ahahahahahaha whahahaa what? aaaaahahahaha “governance and responsibility” ahahahaha. Wait you actually believe that?
Look, I don’t really care anymore what you to. Stay your curse and get repeatedly f-ed by the crocks who run your beloved EU. Get ready to see your savings erode over the next decade to pay for the “mistakes” the “responsible” people at the ECB made.
“inflation came out of nowhere, we did not see it coming” meanwhile the internet was full of memes about the money printer and how they willingly create this situation. The only reason why they intervene now and try to shrink the supply is because it would start to cause civil unrest and cost them their heads if they continued this.
Yes, and I’m glad I’m glad we have still people that create tools and means to fight this. This isn’t about “responsibility” it is about totalitarian central control. Governments always got towards centralization of power and we have to stop this before it becomes irreversible. Taking the power over money out of their hands is the single most important thing we can do to achieve that, just like we did with data.
There are over a hundred countries all over the world and some of them are already embracing the technology. The only thing the western countries can do is temporarily ban themselves and their industry from it, while other parts of the world drops the dollar system that abuses them and opts for a open monetary system that respects their sovereignty.
Eventually they will have to give in and adopt it when they want to trade with this countries.
The “secret plan” is to have millions of Bitcoiners in the western world so we can establish it as a fact of live before the politicians can do anything about it. If it becomes big enough fast enough they will not be able to stop it, like they couldn’t with the internet.
If that “secret plan” doesn’t work then there will be a difficult fight for decades, after which Bitcoin will emerge as the winner eventually. I rather hope we can avoid that fight.
“With bank transfers the name and address of the sender provided by the bank are recorded so it’s not entirely anonymous.” Also up to 1k CHF per day transferred, 15k per month max.
The FINMA requires VASPs to provide Personally Identifiable Information, or PII, of customers (natural or legal persons) involved in crypto transactions. This is part of the KYC process in the Swiss crypto space. PII includes:
Client’s name
Client’s account number, or a reference number for the transaction
Client’s address, date and place of birth, their client number, or national ID number
Beneficiary’s name
Beneficiary’s address
I just added that for clarity, you should not forget to finish your sentence…
You mean China? Russia? Oh okay. Geography isn’t your forte. Again, here you are just rambling on with untruths because you know damn well. The only countries that have adopted BTC are dictatorships, and 1 country did it. See how you have to obfuscate the truth in every of your posts? It’s possible you aren’t smart but it has all the earmarks of a scam.
Eh… but this failed exactly. This is what happened to BTC when it’s 60k peak failed and it kept tumbling down into a bunch of people holding bags desperatly. And a bunch or organised criminals who keep telling you to not broadcast their worldwide money “tunnels”. What a … pardon my swiss-french… “■■■■■■■■■■■”.
Yeah I’m aware of that. I actually talked to the guy who has one of this exchanges and he told me that they are not sure how long it will take until they have to abandon this “KYC light (just bank info)” because of pressure from the EU and the US.
The sentiment was a bit that the FINMA doesn’t actually has people know anything about Bitcoin and how cumbersome this would make things. They are not against Bitcoin. So my question was why don’t we place our own people in the FINMA and change it from within to counter this push for more surveillance.
Sure, things can change. I only know the information I have. Maybe one day everyone can do everything they want without any limitation. I guess people will only do good once they get rid of the shackles of social control?
Look, I’m not a libertarian, but your head is so stuck up your governments ass I’m inclined to take the opposite position just because, and I don’t want that.
So let’s just say we will see what happens and you cross your fingers that they don’t completely erode your lifesaving away.
I understand the feeling, I do believe we had quite a lenghty debate. Get some rest now, time changes things. I can’t predict what the future has in store for us. But we all can have our opinions and agree to disagree.
Don’t let the crypto get you. Make sure you diversify. Or not, sometimes luck is all that’s deciding faith.
This, exactly.
They can remove any existing transaction from history.
They can create a fake account, give it BTC, then give BTC back, then revert the first operation, and they have infinite money
I would not call that “limited”. For a system that relies on trust, this would mean the end.
That’s a soup of words. Using energy does not ensure security.
It’s the opposite : what gives security is the energy required to solve the problem of data decryption. An energy that is already used by the BTC miners …
under which condition ?
Unless they lose too much money mining.
Under which condition ? You are forgetting an important part here. There is a very basic condition for 50% to not be doable.
Yeah more likely that addresses would get blacklisted by everyone and the moment you try to cash out everyone would figure out who the aggressor is.
It took me a while to figure out what you mean, but it can’t be as stupid as more than half the energy of global production right? You are not that dumb, you know it also requires hardware which by the way gets obsolete if your attack successfully destroys Bitcoin and the double spent Bitcoin get worthless as well.
So you have any other concerns other than “but what 51% attack”? Because I’m not concerned. When you brought that up did you think that was a good argument against Bitcoin, because you know that limitation and attack vector is already mentioned in the whitepaper.
The question is not how bad is Prove of Work (it’s pretty good), but what other consensus mechanism is better to replace it. So far there is no better one I know of.
No It’s much more simple than that.
The requirement is that all the miners get paid more than they spend . If the energy cost of BTC is higher than its mining cost then people will stop mining.
And as I already wrote (but you claimed this was nonsense), the energy cost of mining BTC is increasing ( ×2 every 4 years).
3c per kW⋅h, 1500 kW⋅h per transaction, 2000 transaction/block, 6.25 BTC/block
=> 0.03×1500×2000%6.25 = 14400$/BTC is the limit below which 3c price miners can work.
in 1.5y it will even double (because 3.25BTC/block)
so for those people to keep mining, the price of BTC needs to be above ±29k$ by 2024.
Under the assumption of a constant electricity price, the condition for BTC to be able to avoid 50% attack is, that the BTC value is above a minimum that doubles every 4 years. This is basically a growth of 19% per year.
And the requirement for that, is that investors invest constantly in the BTC, in order to make its value grow artificially. So actually, investors are the one paying the miners. Cause nobody wants to pay 45$ per transaction.
But investors won’t get a gain from BTC because it is not producing anything. Any service provided is cheaper and/or more efficient elsewhere. So they only profit from it when OTHER investors make the price rise and they can sell the BTC to a higher price. Which is the definition of a ponzi.
So intrinsically, BTC is a ponzi. To function, it requires a yearly +19% in its value. This can be reduced by using cheaper electricity, reducing the difficulty, but all in all it’s still a ponzi.
In all of your calculations you forgot to add the BTC network fee/miner fees which are separate from the block reward. For each block BTC miners are also paid $48,000 in transaction fees (the total amount generated in transaction fees per block) from genuine users, You have completely ignored a large part of BTC which are it’s genuine users where they are in fact generating an amount of BTC that is paid directly to the miners.
The $48,000 transaction total was for a typical block in Feb 2021, So in 24 hours around that date last year All miners world wide were actually paid $7m per day in transaction fees generated purely by genuine users and not investors. So no, a BTC miners income is not only the reward of 6.25 BTC it is also based on a share of the transactions fees which as you can see is large for the small amount of current BTC users.
Again, this is 100% fact and hasn’t been considered in your calculation, your calculation concludes that BTC is a ponzi. With the factual info I have presented it does appear that a miners income is in fact more than you claim it is so your calculations are still not proof that BTC is a ponzi.
So, we have crypto exchange fees paid by the sender and receiver of BTC to the exchange, then we have transaction fees paid by the sender to the miner. we also have a reward fee paid to the miner by the BTC system which is purchased by the crypto exchange.
Why would you think the use of the BTC network is free? and I can’t see why you would purposely miss this out. no service that is available to the public is ever going to be free I know you are an experienced person and you study things, I just can’t see why you would miss out a large part of the calculation just to push your narrative.
I really hope you can see and learn here that ignorance only has one destination which is falsehood, consider every factual aspect of something and then you are more likely to arrive at a factual conclusion.
Yeah, the reason why I said it is nonsense is because you completely ignore the difficulty adjustment.
It doesn’t matter how many miners there are, every 2016 blocks, the nodes calculate the average time it took for a block to be found since the last difficulty adjustment and then the difficulty is adjusted so the average is back to 10min per block.
This means the more miner and the higher the hash rate, the more difficult it is to mine a block. However, if miners leave because they are not profitable, the difficulty will go down again.
In essence, at the moment there are ~900 BTC to be mined per day. The difficulty adjustment makes sure this amount stays the same. If the price of Bitcoin tanks, or more miners start mining, it becomes less profitable and the most inefficient miners will be the first to quit. Miners will continue to quit until a new equilibrium is found where the remaining ones can keep operating. It is an extremely efficient free market.
The halving to ~450 BTC per day just means that it will kick out a lot of inefficient miners, if the price doesn’t rise until then. But there will always be miners remaining, because there will always be a new equilibrium.
The only question regarding the halving is that at some point the miners will have to be payed by transaction fees only. This means that if we want to retain the amount of security we have today, a normal Bitcoin transaction would require a fee of around $50. So the question is how can this be achieved.
And there is no conclusive answer yet. The general idea is that with the layered approach a lot of very small fees can get aggregated on higher layers to pay for the occasional expensive on-chain transaction.
I think the future will look like this: A lot of users are aggregated in federated chaumian mints, or in the western world proprietary payment apps, and they all are connected to the lightning network via a few channels operated by independent lightning service providers.
Similar to the difficulty adjustment, the fee market over the limited block space will foster a free market where this providers compete to offer the cheapest user transactions and highest reliability, while at the same time trying to maintain a small on-chain footprint to make a profit.
This will in theory balance out again, but I’m not actually sure if there is any conclusive study today to actually crunch all this numbers in a real model, mainly because all this components are just starting to get together and not all the details are clear yet.
So this is very much still an area of research while all of this is developing.
ahahahaha. Wait you actually believe that?
