/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>OP
Bitcoin BTC has been compromised. Time to switch to another cryptocurrency

>>55968093
Shib?

>>55968093
There doesn't seem to be any blockchain that is economically secure, decentralized, can be used as a settlement layer for decentralized applications, and isn't compromised at some level.

Ethereum may or may not be compromised, but services catering to it absolutely are, as are a number of the services running on it. Its canonicality is also dictated by centralized stable issuers, so we learned during the fiasco immediately following the merge.

Meanwhile Monero might be perfect if not for the fact that you can't build shit on it to begin with.

>>55968115
Shib is an ERC20.

>>OP
>Can't believe no one is talking about this as this is a massive change for the entire crypto space.
You're just a newfag who didn't go through 2017 fork wars.

>>55968093
>>55968151
nobody gives a shit about BTC anymore since the gains are long gone

why the fuck would you risk it for maybe a 2x or 3x in 10 years?

>>55968093
Bitcoin was never compromised, it was just never the "leet hacker coin" that everyone thought it was

>>OP
1. There's like 94% of all bitcoin already mined.
2. whitelist/blacklist is against the market dynamics.
Imagine being a shareholder in a mining company leaving bitcoin on the table.
What you're suggesting is opposite of how jews act.
3. All nodes have a memory pool that they broadcast to each other.
What you're suggesting doesn't make economic sense and will be a short lived threat in the grand scheme of things.

Do some research when the Chinese miners and jews/CIA tried this in 2017.

>>55968160
We got Nostradamus in the house, I better sell!

>>55968151
/b/tard since 2004, know your place newfriend.
This news has been public for a few days now and not one person here mentioned it, /biz/ used to be the tip of the spear in regards to new information, now its the last place to find out.
>>55968173
Blackrock don't care about market dynamics, their portfolio is made up of companies threatened by Bitcoin, hindering it is in their best interest. It's never about money, it's always about control, particularly so when you're bankrolled by free central bank money.

>>OP
typical newfag who didn't go through 2017 fork wars.

>>55968213
You're a 4chan loser, and not a bitcoiner so you missed a lot and don't understand how this works.

Say a mining pool decides to leave money on the table.
Each pool is made up of 1,000s of miners who can decide where to point their hashrate.

Elon Musk and Saylor tried to attack Bitcoin through ESG standards on mining just 2 years ago, and that failed.

You're just an over socialized woman spreading FUD with no history to back it.

>>55968213
Do you suggest any other source of information excluding /biz?

>control
bitcoin isn't ethereum, top-down control doesn't work in decentralized networks. gas will be distributed.

(((narrative))) alrdy flipped

>>55968275
There's nothing stopping a company with majority hash control setting up whitelists for their nodes. Even if other nodes band together to broadcast transactions, the majority hash node controlled by blackrock will just create a chainsplit and acquire more proof of work to be the real chain.
BTC isn't as decentralized as everyone thinks it is, there's only a handful of actual mining nodes and now one company is positioning themselves to have majority control over these nodes. All the small miners combined can't match up to these 4 large miners, they have majority hash rate.
Miners just want to get paid, if a white list goes up and the blackrock chain becomes the hash leader while minority miner chains get orphaned guess what happens, those miners pointing their hash at the minority pools are going to point it to the blackrock pools so they get paid.

TLDR: Blackrock just took over BTC and there's nothing anyone can do to stop it.

>>55968325
>the majority hash node controlled by blackrock will just create a chainsplit and acquire more proof of work to be the real chain.
That's not how it works... at all

>>55968325
Chain splits only occur when they change the consensus rules through a hardfork.

You missed 2017 completely.

Say they wanted to chain split that isn't bitcoin because the nodes don't go with you.
You're essentially mining a dead chain like bcash.

>>55968160
The main liquidity for the whole crypto market comes through btc. Yes the gains are gone but your favorite memecoin shits the bed every time btc dumps 0.5%.

>>55968327
chain splits occur often, but are quickly resolved with one chain being orphaned while the other is accepted, this is all written in the white paper and isn't a new concept.
In the event of a white list scenario those not on the blackrock white list will continue mining transactions filtered out by blackrock but its pointless as even if they find a block, their hash isn't enough to exceed the proof of work done on the blackrock chaintip. Blackrock has full control over which transactions get accepted into blocks now and BTC is fully centralized.
The only way around this is for miners contributing hash to the top 4 pools to move to other pools to ensure that majority hash is no longer under blackrock's control. But this won't happen because 99.99% of miners aren't even aware that this move has occurred yet. And even if they are, they don't care, they just want their payout to cash it out for fiat.

>>55968374
Why do you think a whitelist can act as a fork when it isn't?

The way it would work is there would be a free market mempool with more rewards, and a whitelist mempool with less rewards.

Blackrock can't block a block. That's not how it works.

>>55968327
the late adopter altmaxi crowd really thinks bitcoin shares any resemblance to the centralized alt market.
the irony is these people keep bitcoin "early" while all their alts "late".

Another halving, another step towards Bitcoin's death. It's sad how no one is paying attention to chain security and miner decentralization.

>>55968213
Big brains already knew bitcorn was a poop coin
This has been known for years.
Monero is better

>>OP
This gives them:
>NO control over the distribution of coins. They can't in fact dump anything that they haven't mined.
>NO control over who can transact, as transactions that are blacklisted by blackrock miners will be included by other miners.
>NO control over the nodes, this one is so obvious i don't even bother explaining it.

In conclusion, you're retarded and/or haven't done proper research on how bitcoin works.

>>55968374
What you're arguing is stupid.

Everyone else is going to accept blackrock blocks and begin to work on the next block.
Then when blackrock rejects a block and keeps working they're just wasting electricity.

Say they find the solution to block 805284, but that solution was already broadcasted they just wasted x amount of power.

There aren't two competing camps trying to hash a certain way.
This isn't a fork.

Blackrock would just be acting stupid and wasting money while everyone else accepts their good solutions and rejects their old ones.

>>55968421
> buy majority share in all mining firms
> control what gets included in the next 10 blocks, constantly
so?

>>55968426
This isn't PoS dumbass.

>>55968385
Here's how it works.
> Blackrock create a whitelist for nodes in their pools which only accepts broadcasted transactions into the mempool from approved addresses.
> Blackrock also create a blacklist for nodes in their pools to ignore broadcast transactions from specific addresses
> Now the mempool on blackrock nodes is different to the mempool on non-blackrock nodes
> Blackrock find a block, their filtered series of transactions go into the block and is this block becomes the chain tip
> Blackrock (majority hash / proof of work) stop accepting broadcast transactions from non blackrock miners (minority hash / proof of work)
> Blackrock keep mining blocks with their superior hash, all non blackrock blocks get orphaned. Minority miners must accept blackrock blocks as legitimate to mine new blocks
> Blackrock now has total control over which transactions go into blocks and which miners they allow onto the network
With minority hashpower, even all the smaller pools combined can't out do the proof of work needed to reclaim the chain tip.
There is a solution to this and it's listed in the white paper, Only Honest Nodes Are Valid. In the above situation Blackrock is not operating an honest node. But good luck getting control of the ticker symbol again, this has already been shown to fail with the BCH / BTC fork.

>>55968434
this >>55968430 you tard

>>55968319
is this supposed to be a bad thing? I guess with Jews you win

>>55968426
the more transactions you include the more money you make. That means if you choose not to include a part of the transactions you are a disadvantage to your competitors. Blackrock wouldn't be able to do it without bankrupting them, and surely the mining companies wouldn't want to go bankrupt.
The way bitcoin is so decentralized means that no matter what you won't be able to buy your way into the majority of the hashpower.

>>55968467
>Blackrock wouldn't be able to do it without bankrupting them
heu?? no they could you dumb nigger

>>55968467
>The way bitcoin is so decentralized means that no matter what you won't be able to buy your way into the majority of the hashpower.
KEK this is exactly what buying 10-100k ASICs allows you to do

>>55968434
>>55968449
You guys are so stupid arguing an ETH ruleset or someone and applying it to BTC.
I'm out, going to the gym.

>>55968482
2017 nigger they had 90% of hash power and lost.

OP is arguing blackrock already has 51% hashrate. This isn't that hard to understand, if someone has 51% hashrate they control the chain. All blocks published by other miners combined will be a shorter chain than the one blackrock mines by himself. Retards ITT don't understand the basics of PoW consensus.

>>55968486
>m-m-muh ETH PoS
No one is talking about PoS here you retard. Tell me what is the longest chain rule in Bitcoin?

>>55968434
What do you think, which percentage of the hashpower and nodes does blackrock need to control/influence in order to achieve this?

>>55968449
BTC is proof of work, and guess who now controls the majority hash power? Its Blackrock.
>>55968467
Irrelevant, they'll make more than enough money from the block subsidy to offset any transactions they choose not to include. They also have enough money to bankrupt all other pools while simultaneously acquiring control of SHA256 ASIC production.
We're going to see some crazy shit start taking place in BTC land. Did you really think (((they))) would just sit by and let a new technology usurp (((their))) control over the money supply?

>>55968160
>maybe a 2x or 3x in 10 years
People said this in 2020 and Bitcoin did a run from 3k to 69k

>>55968482
>10-100k
current hashpower is 350M TH/s, let's take half: 175M. One antminer is capable of 13 TH/s.

175M TH/s / 13 TH/s = 13461538 antminers.

You would need to buy 13 million ASICs. Considering they cost 1500 dollars each, you would need to spend 20B dollars. That's not considering the surge in price that such demand would generate. Other than that you would need to spend billions of dollars of electricity to mine blocks at a disadvantage to everyone else.

>>55968486
btc maxis are so fucking deluded. PoS or PoW, the core principle is ALWAYS the same: get a majority of some ressource (over time), be influencial

simple as

>>55968501
They have control of over 75% of all hashrate as of right now.

>>55968509
Even if they don't have 51% (yet) they have so much money they could start bribing hashrate at 1.2x block reward. Miners are greedy and selfish, they don't care if this is the obvious first sign of an attack. Some will warn miners not to do it, many will take the $$$. There are people already calculating profits/costs of an attack vs. profits/costs of mining for the next n years before someone else attacks.

>>55968517
All of this to create a denial of service that the bitcoin community would be able to notice easily and circumvent as easily.

>>55968517
You don't have to buy new ASICs, you can rent the existing ones.

>>55968517
The current hash rate is 350 EH/s, a typical antminer is capable of 150-200 TH/s. So yeah, about 2 million antminers (or equivalent power)

>>55968493
Lmaoo no you don't understand. Ultra pleb

Blackrock % Vanguard owns 16% of Riot

Blackrock & Vanguard owns 11.5% of CLSK

Blackrock & Vanguard owns 17.5% of MARA

>>55968520
mining pools arent individual miners
do there even exist reliable statistics on how much hashpower these companies even totally operate

>>55968598
>This is so big for bitcoin!!!!!

>>55968603
Let's just put our heads in the sand, fellow Bitcoiners. This is no problem at all, everything is fine.

>>55968574
>>55968578
>>55968585
You can go through their press releases to find hashing values

> Riot expects to achieve a total self-mining hash rate capacity of 12.5 exahash per second (“EH/s”) in the fourth quarter of 2023

> "We have fully funded our growth to 16 EH/s, including miners, facilities, and other infrastructure, on top of a record-breaking quarter in terms of growth and revenue,"

> https://www.mara.com/
18.8 EH/s

>>OP
They own a percentage of 4 US miners, literally means nothing in terms of controlling Bitcoin because these 4 companies combined don't control 51%. Even if they did, it would be a shortlived attack.
Also the whitelist scenario you brought up isn't feasible because anyone can run a node and thousands of people worldwide do just that. Blackrock would have to constantly update their nodes with lists. And guess what, in bitcoin you generate new addresses and choose to only use them once. So it's impossible to censor. Furthermore, miners outside the US will simply include any blacklisted addresses in their block. A large percentage of the blocks being mined are outside the US.

>>55968664
So literally nothing compared to worldwide hash rate.

Now the final step is for the buttcoin crowd to claim Bitcoin as their own, how it's actually hella progressive and trans as heck

>>55968148
>Meanwhile Monero might be perfect if not for the fact that you can't build shit on it to begin with.
but you can use it for its intended purpose, monero is what everyone thinks bitcoin is. maxi moonboy retards just dont get it

>>55968672
You've underestimated just how much control blackrock have over the companies they're invested with. If it's like any of their other investments, there will be other companies investing in these mining companies that hold the exact same ideas that blackrock do, it's their proven track record of exerting control so far.
If your "node" doesn't mine, then it literally doesn't matter, it can't stop blocks being produced, it can't stop transactions being filtered out, it does nothing.
> So it's impossible to censor
With greater than 50% of the mining power it's trivial to censor which transactions go into a block and which do not
> miners outside the US
All the largest miners are in the US, greater than 51% of the hashrate exists in just one legal jurisdiction which is the USA. If those USA miners are told to censor a transaction by a legal authority, they'll do it and they'll work together to outpace any non-USA node based proof of work to ensure that the censored chain is accepted as the real chain.

Predictions
Hash rate will further centralise under the blackrock controlled mining companies which are based in the USA.
USA Legislation will pass that allows control over what transactions do and don't get into the network, the blackrock miners will all abide by this along with the pools located in the USA.
Some pools / miners may move their hash offshore but it won't be enough to reduce the majority control exerted over the network by blackrock / us govt.
This is going to be a rude awakening for anyone that thinks BTC is decentralised, they'll most likely dump.

>>OP
autodesk are bunch of gypsies and crooks

>>55968722
So tell me how would Blackrock filter out my fresh address?
Like I said, Blackrock would have to generate a new whitelist every 10 minutes and update their nodes accordingly. It's literally futile.
And the US does not control the majority of hash power. But let's say enough miners could collude together and launch a 51% attack. The attack itself would be costly in energy and it would get detected immediately, causing a fork which would leave the Blackrock chain and leave them with a pile of useless asics. A 51% attack on bitcoin isn't realistic.

Doesn't mining more crypto lower it's value? This is an attack?

Attacking Bitcoin by trying to take over the network comes at a great cost with short lived meaningless results. It might have worked in the early days but the network is far too large and spread out across the globe. There are other, less expensive ways to possibly attack bitcoin. Blackrock is in it for the profits and bitcoin is also a long-term hedge against fixed income, of which they are exposed too.

>>55968817
> So tell me how would Blackrock filter out my fresh address?
Your fresh address has no coins on it. You have to transfer coins to it. And it's not hard to track identity across transactions if you're using or have used any service that has KYC compliance.
So here's the hypothetical situation: You say something a bit too spicy on social media, blackrock could then find all known addresses you have with coins in them, and black list them. Your coins are now effectively unable to be transacted as they'll never hit the mempool of a block producing node that can maintain greater proof of work than all the blackrock nodes and USA miners.

Your BTC is not censorship resistant or decentralized at all. This will be painfully obvious to everyone early next year.

>>55968907
now this is just way over the top fud
tell me again how big media stopped me from pirating 20 years ago with their near total control and infinite monies

>>55968925
China already censor financial transactions using their traditional banking systems. Do you really think our governments aren't going to push for a similar level of control across all financial options? It's blatantly obvious that they will and I've outlined exactly how they'll be doing it to BTC or any other SHA256 mined coin.
I don't hold any BTC so I couldn't care less if you think its FUD, it's reality and only once people start talking about the problem can a solution be created. Not one solution has been provided, it's all heads in sand or a complete failure to comprehend what's happening.

>>55968839
God you're stupid

>>55969001
Those companies that Blackrock owns shares in have nowhere remotely close to having the hash power to pull off a short lived 51% attack. So post this again when they get there.

>>55968496
Suck my dick retard I already explained it several times in the thread.

Blackrock can't reject a valid block.
They can only pull that stuff on PoS like ETH.

>>55968519
Miners are service providers.

This was proven in 2017

You're all illiterate and don't know what you're talking about.

>>55968722
You're wrong and a dumbass.

Nobody FUDing Bitcoin has made a coherent argument.

They just are making up bullshit and reject what has happened historically and what makes logical sense.

>>55969078
If a miner has 51% hashrate (what OP is arguing) they can create the longest chain by themselves making it the canonical chain. All other blocks get orphaned because they are on a shorter chain. Why argue if you don't understand the very basics?

>>55969153
That would require a fork of the network.
These whitelist/blacklist ideas are enforced on their own nodes, not as consensus changes.

Good luck forking BTC after 2017 and having the network agree with hamstringing itself.

>>55968434
With jews you lose

>>55969047
They might not have the hash power yet, but I bet they have invested enough to payroll someone like this to trivialize and slide these threads. I'm with OP on this one.

>>55969153
>Why argue if you don't understand the very basics?
you^

>>55969166
There would be forks, yes. But the canonical chain (=fork) would be the one where the majority miner decides to mine on. Because he has over 50% hashrate he can create his own chain entirely if he wants to, and this would be the canonical Bitcoin chain because it'd have most work done (=longest).
>>55969182
Tell me what is the longest chain rule in Bitcoin? I understand it, do you?

If you go any further I'll just assume you're trolling. No one can be this ignorant.

>>55969198
And nobody would follow it because it wouldn't have the economic power backing it.
They would bleed money and go bankrupt or come crawling back to daddy.

Hashpower isn't everything, you need to look at 2017 they had 90% of the miner control and failed. (you still haven't rebutted this point)

The longest chain rule isn't even valid it should be the most PoW.
Look at all the games bcash played they messed with their mining algorithm to get more blocks, but nobody uses it it's a piece a shit.

Lol. Larry really eats every bait
In two years nobody is going to remember what a Blackrock was

>>55969213
You weren't here in 2017, you don't run a Bitcoin node, shut the fuck up.

>2023
>Noooo muh bitcoin

based retards

>>55969198
>There would be forks, yes.
Good FUCKING LUCK

Nobody will program it for them, you probably don't even now what segwit2x is.

The desperation is getting really cute. I wonder does he think (((advertising))) in a atomized low trust society is able to make him cash selling dog shit
That boomer lost the plot 5 years ago

>>55969218
>And nobody would follow it because it wouldn't have the economic power backing it.
True, but SHA256 would be done for good. And therefore Bitcoin as we know it. Bitcoiners would have to talk about social consensus and "code is law" midwits would be btfo.
>2017 they had 90% of the miner control and failed
Bitcoin cash was a hard fork and therefore separate from Bitcoin. Hashrate on BCH doesn't affect BTC consensus.
>The longest chain rule isn't even valid it should be the most PoW
Most people refer to this rule as longest chain rule. It's just semantics, we all know what it is. Longest chain rule = most work done is the canonical chain.
>>55969224
I was here in 2017 and I've ran a Bitcoin node in the past.
>>55969233
All these forks would be orphaned by the most-work-done chain ran by blackrock.
> will program it for them
What the fuck are you talking about? A fork doesn't need "programming" all you have to do is mine a block that's different from someone else's. JFC you have no idea what you're talking about.
>don't even now what segwit2x is.
I know very well. I was #no2x.

>>55969233
Do you know what an orphan block is? Do you consider it a fork or does a fork in your definition have to have more than 1-2 blocks and people behind it?

Who gives a shit? Will the price go up or down?

>>55969339
So lets loop back to >>55969166
Blackrock would need to fork.
It wouldn't be the end of SHA-256 because this has happened before.

You're just bullshitting me wasting my time.

>>55969339
>What the fuck are you talking about? A fork doesn't need "programming"
S2X was DOA bud because it wasn't programmed correctly.
Those CIA faggots had no idea what they were doing.

>>55969366
What does an orphaned block have to do with this?
They can't enforce the rules you're saying without a hardfork.

What you idiots fail to see, crapto isn't useful as a currency. Nobody uses it to buy goods and services. It's also not a store of value, it's neither an inflation hedge and it's also not a practical decentralized database

Crapto in its entirety as a product failed. Larry can mine and advertise as much as he likes, this isn't the tv era, demand can't be created with advertising and mass media behaviorism, because there is no shared reality mass media

>>OP
>(((Blackrock))) are buying control of the mining companies
Mining isn't supposed to be a forever thing, dipshit.

>>55968461
>my interests align with the jews
>therefore they're the good guys
You're the bad guy you fucking moron

>>55968148
>Shib is an ERC20.
And?

>>55968148
>buy my infinite supply drug coin!!!

>>55968160
>nobody gives a shit about BTC anymore since the gains are long gone
Yeah sure they are buddy.

>>55968213
>b/tard since 2004
So you've been a dumb fuck since 2004? Don't pull rank, it doesn't matter at all.

>>55969381
No, blackrock wouldn't need to fork. Why do you think this is?
>>55969390
S2X was a hard fork, it had different rules than the original chain. You can have forks that follow the same rules but only have different blocks since height x.
>>55969400
Because an orphaned block is a fork that died after one block. No one mines on top of orphaned blocks once the longest chain is clear.
>They can't enforce the rules you're saying without a hardfork.
They can. They don't need to hardfork to propose blocks that follow Bitcoin rules. Why do you think their censoring/empty blocks would break Bitcoin rules?

>>55968325
>TLDR: Blackrock just took over BTC
No.

>>OP
They're hoping they can 51%

>>55969434
>Production and supply matter
>If there is no demand
Lol, your brain on marxist and austrian economic theory

>>55968392
>miner decentralization.
Mining was never supposed to be forever.
21 million.

>>55969454
That's what OP is speculating. I don't fully agree but we're going that way and fast. When it comes to Bitcoin chain security I rather choose the worse case scenario. Tick tock halving, tick tock halving....

>>55969464
So who will secure the chain then?

>>OP
>control
they are becoming stake holders, they aren't gaining control of what the miners do - what the fuck is wrong with you faggot retard nigger tranny cuck spawns

>>55969484
That's the thing. Crapto failed. The idea was that until then it would be used for everyday transaction for goods and services, that is never going to be the case, thanks to scammers from scamstreet like larry

>>55969407
>What you idiots fail to see, crapto isn't useful as a currency. Nobody uses it to buy goods and services.
Africa and the Middle east and south America uses BTC to buy things.
I literally purchase things using BTC all the time.
Might even use BTC to buy a gun.

>>55969502
No they don't. That's just an advertising narrative spread in the west so mouth breather buy bags.

>>OP
>index fund buys shares in top 500 marketcap companies

>>55969478
>don't fully agree but we're going that way and fast.
Blackrock will own a majority of it, they'll sell it for a massive pump and people like you and me will buy back in again.
The US Give has been selling off illegally acquired BTC causing the price to dip.
I dont Blackrock will hold ALL the BTC.
>>55969484
What do you mean?

>>55969499
https://www.investopedia.com/what-can-you-buy-with-bitcoin-5179592

https://cointelegraph.com/learn/what-can-you-buy-with-bitcoin-a-beginners-guide-to-spending-your-btc
K.

>>55969509
>No they don't
Yea they do, their dollar is in the shitter because it's tied to USD.
Google it, fag.
https://news.bitcoin.com/venezuelans-can-now-use-bitcoin-to-pay-for-goods-at-20000-pos-terminals/

https://thefinanser.com/2021/04/venezuela-replaces-national-currency-with-bitcoin

You're a fucking idiot, stop making posts.

>>55969509
I mean, there's a lot of advertising done, but I'm pretty sure people in argentina are using btc for it's deflationary nature and stability (relative to the argentinian peso anyway)

>>55969539
And how many people buy this crap with buttcorn, yes 0. Just because somebody offers through a third party that instantly exchanges buttcorns for dollar to the merchants doesn't mean that anyone is using buttcorn to buy

It's the same discussion as 10 years ago, nobody uses deflationary "currency" that swings around like a cow tail to buy anything.

>>55969509
If you can't understand why people want BTC you're a fucking failure.

>>55969547
>Can now use
Focus on CAN. They actually don't use it. They all sold their buttcorn for dollar and bought food with fiat. You buttcorn scammers don't get it.

>>55969526
>own a majority of it
We are not talking about Bitcoin price. We are talking about hashrate and if the chain gets to live.
>What do you mean?
Miners secure the chain. Less miners leads to an insecure chain that can be more easily attacked.

>>OP
Crypto is literally a kike life raft to keep liquidity from exiting the market into intrinsic commodities that cannot lose value just because someone prints money, and infact ends up gaining value because it undermines the illusion of fiat.

Crypto regardless of what ever it’s capable of, stops inflation from getting any higher be limiting the amount of liquidity that is moved at any given time using limited supply mechanics without the risk of eventual collapse by keeping said “value” within a medium where control over said assets aren’t necessary because control in this context is primarily concerned with keeping the value itself within a digital context.

In short, as long as your dollar never leaves the internet, it doesn’t exist. The moment you liquidate your crypto for bullion however, that’s when you get suicided.

>>55969553
Nobody wants buttcorn. The only selling argument for this ponzi for 6 years has been, somebody stupider than you is going to give you more dollars than you paid for
Buttcorn has no other usecase anymore than a game of greater fool

Interesting as soon as the scam ponzi is called out the bots get shut down

And despite 120 bot posts not one shred of (((consensus))) was created
As consensus is something that doesn't exist on the internet

This is a fud post to try to get you to sell. Blackrock is going to get their ETF because their clients need it because they are in deep shit holding bonds. Larry Fink almost said this much on TV. It's fairly obvious the next round of money printing is going to be the most we've seen yet, guaranteed.

>>55969785
>t.bot

the solution to a 51% controlled network is to use cryptographic proof to show which miners mined which blocks. If a miner produces honest blocks for a long period of time they become more trustworthy. Honest blocks are determined by how similar they are to the mempool of other miners at the time of block broadcasting. If they're drastically different they're not considered honest and the miner that broadcast them is denied access to broadcast any future blocks from that identity.
This makes it easy to identify new miners that act maliciously and considerably increases the cost of attacks as miners would not be able to profit from broadcasting a dishonest block.
A margin of error threshold would need to be allowed to account for normal mempool variance with a looser weighting for recently broadcast transactions and an exponentially higher weighting for older transactions.

>>55969796
>t. Bot

>>OP
>Blackrock
Braindead moron detected.

>>55969793
Did Larry Fink say bitcoin is a hedge against monetary debasement or not? Anyone with two eyes can see what's coming. Bondholders are the sucker at the card table.

>>55969815
>Powell is going to pivot anyday now for 2 years
>2% who cares
>Make my line go up
>Buy my bags
Gtfo baggie

>>OP
>> Control over who can and can not transact, they can easily whitelist who they accept transactions from, if you're not on the list your broadcast transactions won't go through
Completely and utterly fake and gay lmfao. No chains works even remotely like that, fuddy. And by the way, everyone knows this as well. Who do you think you're shilling to here kek

Shit, we are fucked, this will be the last bullrun, next time it will be all on their hands.

>>55968520
Holy fucking retard kek
Did you do any research before coming here?
Mining pools =/= miners.

>>55969860
>Bullrun
Retard detected
>Last one
>Implying that there is going to be line go up
Mouth breather detected

>>55969839
> Transaction gets broadcast to the network from some wallet.
> Mining/Pool node receives the transaction
> Censorship happens here - transaction is entered into the mempool of the next block or transaction is intentionally kept out of the mempool denying access to the next block
> miner/pool finds block, all mempool transactions go into block, block is broadcast to other miners and used to start building the next block
Of course the chain can work like this as the censorship occurs outside of the protocol, the censored block is still valid by protocol rules

Insider here. Black rock Bitcoin ETF will be approved March 2024. By end of 2025 Blackrock will be in almost total control of lightning network. Don’t ask me how I know this but take this as a near certainty.

Somebody restarted the bots

>>55969940
>everyone except me is a bot

>>55970045
No. But this thread is very obviously botted. One of the artificial (((consensus))) creation attempts

>>55969198
>There would be forks, yes. But the canonical chain (=fork) would be the one where the majority miner decides to mine on.

Didn't work in 2016/2017, won't work now. Dumb fud bot.

>>55969933
So help me understand... Do I wait and buy their ETF as soon as it's announced? What can I invest in early to try and ride the wave? I hate those guys, but they are too big and too smart to fail.

>>55971866

just buy and hold Bitcoin in cold storage

>>55969823
I'm not worried about what the Fed does or doesn't do, it's just simple math.

>>55969572
>Nobody wants buttcorn
Reread my posts you fucking drop out.
Plenty of people want it, YOU don't want it.
Why the fuck do you care so much retard?

>>55969695
>ponzi
Learn what that word means you dumb fuck.
>>55969720
>And despite 120 bot posts not one shred of (((consensus))) was created
Christ you're a fucking failure

>>55969557
>They actually don't use it
They do, I do, Africans do.
Shut up.

>>55969557
https://cointelegraph.com/learn/what-can-you-buy-with-bitcoin-a-beginners-guide-to-spending-your-btc..
It's amazing how invested you are to Fudd this supposed scam.
Bought high and sold low? Eh? Scum fuck.

>>55969552
>And how many people buy this crap with buttcorn, yes 0
Conjecture.
You don't know what you're talking about.
I've bought things with btc and so have other people.
Go away you dumb fuck.

>>55972987
No they don't. El Salvador, the crapto was sold for food and never used again.
And Africa, who do you think you are trying to sell your crap advertising here. I am no boomer that falls for muah exotic countries lies. Your models are shit, not applicable to non boomer tv brainwashed people

Oh fuck the advertising are getting angry that one deviation from their model tells the truth and shows them that their attempt at artificial (((consensus))) creation doesn't work anymore. Gramsci is dead Barney is dead you mouth breathers. There is no mass media anymore consumed by a majority, no mass behaviorism possible, your jobs are worthless

Btw, thanks to whoever paid for the field workers and bots itt, together with my three threads that's enough data. You idiots
>Muah crypto
>Muah larry
>Buy my crap bags
Hilarious watching retards apply inapplicable models blind, following plans like qtards

>>55969509
there have been plenty of argentanons and heuhuehues posting here how they use btc in daily life to escape government inflation confiscation
and they gave details on how the daily black market economy operates this way

>>55973113
Lmfao. False feedback you idiot to get you mouth breather to buy their bags
Are you unironically a boomer taking any story posted on an imageboard seriously? No wonder all the models failed, the false feedback loops are inherent in the quantitative models by now.

Really, me too larped as if crapto was the best thing since sliced bread and how I regularly use it and how its the greatest thing ever for international trade, when I was offloading this crap, I larped. False feedback, lies. Nobody uses crapto

>>55973229
>me too larper
Based esl retard

>>55973205
if i use a lot of jargon together i am of smart sounding
the idiot is you if you think shilling /biz/ for btc exit liquidity does anything for daily volume
/biz/ doesnt even move low mc alts anymore

>>55974922
The only "volume" and liquidity in the "market" of crapto is liquidating leveraged positions. There is no, 0, not a single dime of demand for crapto outside gambling and scamming for more dollars. Crapto is worthless, it has a production cost of 0, can be created with 4 clicks for free and there is no usecase or base demand outside of gambling. Crapto is the most clear cut obvious ponzi scheme currently on the planet and it's an absolutely too the max oversaturated ponzi

>>55968093
PBUTT!

>>55968374
>>55968332
>>55968386
You guys are wrong. He literally talks about a 51% attack. If, and only if the 4 companies together controll 51% of the networks hashing power, then that would mean, that who ever owns them effectively owns the chain. Untill the participants in the pools decide to switch to a node outside of blackrock's controll, they will be first to mine every block, which in return makes their whitelist immutable. They are playing bitcoins own rules against itself. Not even trying to fud or so. If this (((twitter screenshit) is to be believed at all.

The chain split he talks about is badly formulated. But there is a concept called shadowchain. With the 51% You excludively mine a longer btc chain of legit transactions but dont brodcast it to the network(shadowchain). Then you spend your coins on the current chain and buy assets like 5 skyscrapers in manhatten for 12btc or something. Once the chinks take all of your real estate and the deal is done, they broadcast their shadowchain to the network, and since it is longer than the current chain, it will get accepted by all nodes to be true giving them back all the spent btc. This allows them to eat their cake and have it too

>>OP
This is what they did to gold miners too

>>55968345
Mine pumped like crazy in a literal bear market

>>55975784
There is an industrial demand for gold and it was for a long time the backing (lol) of a currency. Buttcorn is nothing. Has no demand and no use case. Larry is literally just hoping to be able to scam idiots through marketing

i don't care about anything except chainlink and monero

>>55969446
You’re smart and helpful

>>55975803
You’re a retard if you don’t see how controlling the supply of something dictates a price. Your gold bug industrial demand argument is irrelevant. The PM market is controlled

>>OP
I am not going to read this thread. Just tell me what to buy

>>55975915
This is your brain on marxism and/or Austrian economics, for some reason I don't understand those two schools just completely ignore demand. One thinks demand is driven by production which is bullshit and the other thinks demand is driven by supply which is as much bullshit. If I don't want your product the supply can be 1 and it wont appreciate it or you could produce just 1 unit if nobody wants it, it's worthless

>>55969435
space is fake and gay