/biz/ - Business & Finance

read the white paper son

>>18076999
Sure, easy answer. Got anything of substance? Miners are being liquidated and many are shutting their doors for the halvening. Is this bullish?

>>18077019
when has rate goes up the difficulty increases, and so does scarcity. Sure some capitulate but the end is always the same, the cost to produce gets exponentially higher

When is the halvening again?

>>18076962
because it's a dead meme

>>18077054
The so which accounted for 40% of the hash rate had to be turned off due to it no longer being profitable, it leads me to believe the current price in USD is unsustainable. Miners are hardly making a profit and are leveraging minted coins on longs/shorts using financial tools to keep the lights on. When more begin to get liquidated and the hash rate has to drop, the difficulty will be adjusted. With the difficulty adjustment comes a lower value of BTC as they are easier to mine.

>>18077126
The S9*

Because (((they))) didn't control it back then.

>>18077126
yes theres downward market pressure, depends on how much demand. most miners hold, they only sell some. Smart miners know its not a short return but one that takes place after halvening (its outlined in pitch decks). We are watching game theory in action by eliminating players that cant sustain financially. also that distribution from miners is only a smart part of the economics. IMO bitmex is way more responsible for price action. read https://coinmetrics.substack.com/p/coin-metrics-state-of-the-network-bf8

>>18077126
Sounds like Satoshi Nakamoto didn’t think things through enough. Lol gl

>>18077275
Miners have to pay electric bills, upkeep costs, mortgages, and feed themselves. They also believe coins will rocket in value post halvening so they want to hoard them. Profit margins are becoming thinner during this period. So what they do is leverage tokens in a pawn-style way. The financier will give them cash to pay the bills but hold their coins at a liquidation price. Many chose longs recently and were baited and many miners were liquidated. When liquidated their coins are sold at market price leading to that recent crash in both BTC price, and in TH/s. Not only this but mining in general is vastly trimming fat leaving only the most premiere mining operations left who use shorts as a safety net making their profit margins razor thin, post halvening these will be the only miners remaining leaving BTC BTC incredibly vulnerable to a 51% attack.

When will crypto finally stop relying on the btc and switch over to eth as the main player? Everything seems to run off eth

>>18077521
never, nothing runs on eth you brainlet
it can't even sustain crypto kitties
btc is shit too

>>18077521
ETH is unironically an uncapped, premined, commie shittoken.

>>18077558
>>18077569
Then what happens after btc unironically dies. What takes over?

>>18076962

>>18077126
>With the difficulty adjustment comes a lower value of BTC as they are easier to mine.
it will find economic equilibrium, but it doesn't really matter because it isn't miners controlling the market anymore (this is a largely good thing). mining BTC should be to secure the network for a MODEST reward, the age of Chinese mega farms was not planned

>>18077605
>check my portfolio
I'm up 28% this week though, what is your point?

>>18077610
This leaves BTC vulnerable to a 51% attack though. As the TH/s drop occurs, and it will, so with it comes the value of BTC as the network is less secure.

>>18077610
i remember reading on the white paper that mining would only be done by corporations eventually if im not mistaken.

>>18077054
>tells others to read the whitepaper
>doesnt underdtand bitcoin himself
scarcity only changes with halvings. difficulty doesnt change scarcity
>>18077126
easier to mine but the number of bitcoins that are mined remains the same. hashrate only affects SECURITY, and this can affect the price IF big holders start selling off in fear of a 51% attack. low hashrate is ACTUALLY good in terms of sell pressure, because miners arent forced to sell in order to pay for operational costs

>>18077792
Miners aren't selling right now, they're leveraging their coins. What's going on with the price?

>>18077126
Subsidy doesnt change....

But seriously in the event of a catastrophic devaluation of btc, what happens? Does another coin take over? Do we just call it quits?

>>18077660
every single POW crypto on the face of the planet has this risk, and even if they did it would still cost so much there is little value they could get out of it. all a 51% attack allows you to do is reject /some/ blocks, it doesn't let you print money or anything.

>>18077912
As the chance of a 51% attack rises, the value of achieving HAS to go down to compensate. So as the TH/s drop, price HAS to drop to compensate for that risk.

>>18076962
the amount of hash rate on the network has literally zero to do with profitability
https://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/the-proof-of-work-concept/
>When a person upgrades their mining computer, they mine at a faster rate and therefore earn more bitcoins. However, when everyone upgrades, the mining does not become more efficient as a whole. There is only supposed to be one new block every ten minutes regardless of how hard the network is working. Instead, the network updates the difficulty to require more stringent conditions for future blocks. All miners may work harder, but none is better off. It is rather like a forest, in which every tree tries to grow as tall as possible so as to capture more light than its fellows, with the end result that most of the solar energy is used to grow long, dead trunks.
>Why tie each bitcoin block to a difficult Procrustean bed? The correct way of thinking about the proof-of-work concept is as a means for a group of self-interested people, none of whom is subordinate to any other, to establish a consensus against a considerable incentive to resist it. Bitcoin could operate perfectly well without proof-of-work, as long as everyone was perfectly honest and altruistic. If they are not, then reaching a consensus is difficult.

>>18077987
>As the chance of a 51% attack rises, the value of achieving HAS to go down to compensate
what do you mean the value of achieving?

>>18077792
100 people mining 1 btc per day 100 bitcoins.
difficulty up
110 people mining .901 btc per day 100 bitcoins

Scarcity goes up when more people mine, my son

>>18077610
>the age of Chinese mega farms was not planned

Sounds like Satoshi never thought about the cost of electricity as the main factor in production.

>>18078020
> However, when everyone upgrades, the mining does not become more efficient as a whole.

You can't reduce your electricity cost without moving to another country.

>>18079903
ignorant moron detected
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532#msg6306
>The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users. The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be. Those few nodes will be big server farms. The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate.
>—Satoshi
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=48#msg329
>In a few decades when the reward gets too small, the transaction fee will become the main compensation for [mining] nodes. I’m sure that in 20 years there will either be very large transaction volume or no volume.
>—Satoshi
>>18079903
he absolutely did
no one ever understood or will ever understand Bitcoin better than Satoshi himself

>>18077610
this is the ignorant moron I was referring to, my bad, >>18079903

>>18077610
>mega farms was not planned
>Those few nodes will be big server farms
imagine getting this BTFO by something Satoshi wrote over a decade ago