no it was considered. But it was too obvious to be talked about as I wrote
and it’s the condition to pay with fees :
So no, I actually considered this and only somebody unable to read would believe this idea was not in my mind. Again, you don’t read what I write, you imagine things. Your “facts” are only in your head. In your heaaaaaad, zombie, zombie.
So when you write
You are ignoring the part where I write that the cost would go to 45$/transaction. And claim I wrote that this would be free.
more projection I guess.
Says the one who claims he can quote me on facts but actually can’t.
What a fail. Again claiming wrong things as “facts”. To quote someone else,
I don’t ignore it. I Literally talk about it at the end.
Just because I did not talk about it before does not mean I did not considerate it. In that case, it was just not important to talk about it. Because it has no effect on the reality - and something that has no effect on reality simply does not exist by definition (in a context)
No I did not. I considered them and said people would not accept to pay 45$ in transaction fee for money transfer. Which invalidates that investors could be absent from the gain. And that’s enough.
Sorry that you can’t understand a short sentence when it means something that complex.
Indeed, and I also made a constructive post about what you did assume falsely.
Sadly you just ignored it and continue to play the clown. Should have know better than to waste my time with you.
Please continue to cry about how Bitcoin is not a ponzi you
Because the next thing you said seems to be a conclusion;
So, no you have not considered transaction fees, you talked about them, but did not include them in what a typical BTC miner earns, therefore your assessment is wrong.
And the issue is that difficulty (which makes the mining require more cost) is rarely adjusted, so if many people leave because not worth, it will be longer before the difficulty is adjusted.
So the claim that “difficulty can help regulate” is wrong : it only helps regulate when the number of miner increases. And there will be threshold issues, as people would prefer to mine after the adjustement than before.
So in the end, yes it will reduce the number of people mining (to only those who can afford the exponential price), therefore allowing for 50% attack.
So the conclusion is that, unless BTC has a exponential increase in market value, led by increasing investors, it will not be viable. Which is the definition of a ponzi.
People believe it’s not a ponzi because they can’t criticize the long-term economy. It’s normal to ask for investment when starting a new offer, but it is not normal to require increasing investments on the long term.
Because I’m not talking about “what a typical BTC miner earns”.
Again, quote me where I wrote that. Or STFU.
It’s the second time you talk about that without any explanation about were those terms come from.
So far, they only come from your imagination.
FACT : you pretend I talk about miner earning
FACT : you can’t quote me about where I affirm to talk about that
conclusion : you don’t care about reality. You are a liar.
The newcomer in the list started from his garage, so you are just not telling the truth, kinda like that sales man you hope I would not know. See, why are you lying like that? Well, your income might depend on it, that much I understand but it makes you look silly. Does all the BTC forums are silly too? I’m not going to take a look there so I’ll trust your answer.
Oh my, coal wast used, well, you are still burning coal, lol. But… but… %!
Oh no, these BTC miners lied to you, Karak! If only you had some governance to stop them. Which you have not and they will pollute as much as they like .
Where is the quote that I talk about earning ?
I deny THAT because it’s FACTUALLY wrong.
If I was talking about miners earning I would also take into account their own wages. The investment of purchasing servers. The time they spend to keep up to date (goes into wages). The taxes from the state. Because those would have to be in the balance sheet.
Here I’m not talking about the miners earning. I talk about the constraints that are intrinsic to BTC.
Let’s say that transaction fees cover half the energy cost. What happens to a system where the transactions fees are +19% per year? It dies.
And even in that case the investors cost would still need to ALSO be +19% per year. So it’s still a ponzi.
So yes, I take fees into account and they change nothing to the BTC being a ponzi. They have no effect so they are considered inexistent. Which is already explained with " but nobody wants to pay 45$ fees"
The only case where they have an effect is, when the fees are 100% of the cost, that is people are paying an already 45$/transaction with +19% cost per year, which is impossible unless BTC reduces its difficulty to a point where it becomes trivial to mine. That is, to a point where the security is gone.
So yes, the transaction fees have no impact on the system. Talking about them is a waste of time, from people who lack the ability to think.
Even more, lol. If you lie, try and google it before spouting it like some maniacal narrow minded salesman. Everyone knows BTC is eneregy waste and now they even go use coal… man…"
“Now, thanks in part to an infusion of over $105 million in private capital, the plant is wholly owned and operated by Stronghold Digital Mining. Thousands of Bitcoin mining computers are packed into shipping containers located next to the Scrubgrass plant, where, by Stronghold’s own estimation, 600,000 tons of waste coal is burned every year to generate the electricity needed to power the computers. Burning all that coal generates 371,000 tons of carbon pollution annually, equivalent to 80,000 cars. It can also be dangerous: one Scrubgrass employee fell to his death in 2019 while attempting to clean up material that had spilled off a conveyor belt.”
What do you mean safety for employees? Do you know how much taht costs, plus an outside audit is an infringment into our PRIVCACY!!!
I can’t believe I was telling you about the anarcho capitalism and now I can literally link you articles about how they pollute and employees are expendable.
You claim BTC as a whole is a ponzi, you claimed the BTC value must be a certain value in order for miners to continue, you are talking about miners earnings.
Off-course, that’s the topic that is being discussed. You have been able to divert from it as red flags and false claims were pointed out. Time for some spamming I guess? It’s not like you can deny it. It’s what I predicted, not whta you predicted. Strange that I can assume not everyone is good and some people will just get money and hate the government who tells them to “tone it down, you are not the only human in the world.”…
I could talk about how people fart in local in EVE Online and how it does affect some people. But that is not what the subject matter here is. It’s all about the pure evil of those running the “Satoshi Scheme”.
I never said that there are no miners using fossil fuels.
I said it makes increasingly less sense because with more ASICS on the market there will be more competition and more pressure on electricity costs, so the trajectory is towards utilizing cheap waste energy.
Even then, Bitcoin mining is probably one of the cleanest industries regarding the energy mix they use already, because of that pressure.
The earning of miners takes BTC value into account, but not only.
So no, I’m not talking about miners earnings.
BTC increasing the energy requirement makes coal electricy worth restarting in some countries.
If you go to a place with green electricity, and that green electricity was exported, then somewhere else a coal central opens to actually provide what you consume.
The only case where BTC is green, is when it does not increase the consumption. eg when it is used as a way to dissipate over production. In that case you can even be paid for the negative energy you bring up
