/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.18859061]

Good lord I haven’t seen anything this bullish since early 2017. I remember when Ethereum took off from $10 and never looked back. It feels like that.

[Anonymous No.18859089]

>>18859061
why?

[Anonymous No.18859438]

>>18859089
because my ID is green and yours is a pink wojak

[Anonymous No.18859475]

>>18859061
Same here op. I fucked up and sold a lot of eth in early 2017. Because I knew it would dump again. Feels like early 2017

[Anonymous No.18859524]

>>18859438
based

[Anonymous No.18859552]

>On the Instability of Bitcoin Without the Block Reward
https://www.cs.princeton.edu/~arvindn/publications/mining_CCS.pdf
Princeton university

>Beyond the doomsday
economics of “proof-of work” in cryptocurrencies
Monetary and Economic Department

https://www.bis.org/publ/work765.pdf

"Second, the transaction market cannot generate an adequate level of
“mining” income via fees as users free-ride on the fees of other transactions in a block and in the
subsequent blockchain. Instead, newly minted bitcoins, known as block rewards, have made up the bulk
of mining income to date. Looking ahead, these two limitations imply that liquidity is set to fall dramatically
as these block rewards are phased out. Simple calculations suggest that once block rewards are zero, it
could take months before a Bitcoin payment is final, unless new technologies are deployed to speed up
payment finality. Second-layer solutions such as the Lightning Network might help, but the only
fundamental remedy would be to depart from proof-of-work, which would probably require some form
of social coordination or institutionalisation."

>Written by phd´s in computer science and economics. Bitcoiners can’t refute this fud, lol. These academic papers prove that proof of work will not work longterm.
Another weakness is the lack of on chain governance, which results in huge governance and coordination problems, and limits innovation.

-Bitocin censorship
https://medium.com/@johnblocke/r-bitcoin-censorship-revisited-58d5b1bdcd64

[Anonymous No.18859567]

but why

[Anonymous No.18859852]

>>18859567
The reasons “why” will be retrofitted to fit a narrative, and we will have armchair historians talk as if it was as clear as day “why” BTC went to 100k.

[Anonymous No.18861045]

>>18859552
This fud is decent, but supposing miners deviate from the standard strategy is kind of a prisoners dilemma since its only optimal if other miners deviate. And if they were to deviate from the traditional strategy that would mean they are basically conspiring together at which point why not orchestrate some particularly damaging double spend?

[Anonymous No.18861092]

>>18859438
Holy fucking based bros

[Anonymous No.18861160]

>>18859061
ETH took off from $7 way to out yourself as a new fag with a larpfolio

yikes and cringe

[Anonymous No.18861208]

>>18861045
FUCKING HELL. PRICE NEEDS TO BE CIRCA $13K FOR MINERS TO BREAK EVEN. ELECTRICITY ISN'T FREE. BTC IS FUCKED AND SHOULD BE BINNED FOREVER.

[Anonymous No.18861231]

>>18859552
academic cope lmao

[Anonymous No.18861247]

>>18861208
they’ll just turn off the unprofitable asics or move them from network to network

[Anonymous No.18861522]

>>18861247
Most of them are unprofitable. That's not an option for smaller miners anyway. Difficulty will not adjust in time. BEEP BEEP PULL UP PULL UP.

[Anonymous No.18862125]

>>18861160
You can think whatever you like anon, I can show my first Eth purchase as well if you want

[Anonymous No.18862201]

>>18859438
Based, we are gonna make it boys

[Anonymous No.18862227]

>>18861208
>What is difficulty adjustment?

[Anonymous No.18862286]

>>18859552
Computer science PHD's are retarded. Have you met one before?

[Anonymous No.18862348]

>>18859552
Man, relying on PhDs for accurate market information is peak retard, especially because people in science fields are typically broke as fuck.

Also have you ever met a PhD student? You may not want to put so much credence on this lol

[Anonymous No.18862418]

>>18859552
This is complete shit tier appeal to authority nonsense and I'll shit all over it right now if your dumb ass is still here

[Anonymous No.18862908]

>>18862348
I have an undergrad economics degree, as well as a masters in computer science. I am bullish on Bitcoin from what it means from both a financial and technical perspective. As soon as I understood how it worked I was all-in crypto since 2017. It has allowed me to maintain and grow wealth. The uneducated do not understand the forces at play here, but for those who “get it” the light bulb clicks instantaneously.

[Anonymous No.18862961]

>>18862908

You obviously don't understand the technology, because, if you did, you would know that BTC can't support even 0.01% of the world-population using it as a medium of transaction. When the price spiked before, you were spending dozens of dollars to make small transactions, and waiting sometimes days for them to process. If you really believe in Bitcoin, buy BCH. If not, your money is going to nothing when the house of cards collapses.

[Anonymous No.18862967]

>>18861045

For people whose primary income is Bitcoin, it is in their interest to secure the network rather than subvert it. That's the whole incentive of being any type of validating node in any network. In a way, a 51% attack-- and a sybil attack as well-- is self-defeating. In the case of BTC and POW, a 51% attack would damage the reputation of BTC in a way that would decrease its value, possibly catastrophically if people flee from the network and stop buying BTC overnight.

It's one thing for some rogue individual to plan a double spend and then just disappear into the night, but that's unlikely to ever happen because accumulating all the hash power to attack would be extremely expensive. But for a serious mining operation, their entire setup is banking on their continued ability to mine and sell bitcoin, and a big heist would destroy their own livelihood. Attacking for too small an amount would mean you probably expend more computing energy than the value of the double spend, and too large an amount of a double spend would send people away from the network and taking refuge in fiat or PMs.

In the case of a sybil attack, similarly, the amount of funds that would have to be acquired and staked to form a multitude of validating nodes would be insane.

[Anonymous No.18862996]

>>18862908
Highly doubt you have any degrees at all desu

[Anonymous No.18863015]

>>18861231
>>18862286
>>18862348
Buttcoiner COPE

[Anonymous No.18863055]

>>18862908
Obvious larp. If you had the degrees you say ou have it would be obvious by now that bitcoin is shit technically and economically

[Anonymous No.18863485]

>>18863055
>>18862996
>>18862961
Not how it works, one of the first currencies used by mankind was large circular rocks. They were heavy and hard to move, which was useful against thieves looking to take them away. Transactions were not meant to be regularly performed, it is a modern misconception that we need a transaction of BTC every time someone wants to buy a coffee. We have mechanisms like Visa and Mastercard’s centralized APIs to perform at this transaction speed. Bitcoin is more akin to gold, where you can slice off a portion of value and use it in a more rapid moving currency format such as fiat. It can still be used peer-to-peer like these original rocks were, but ultimately derived more value since there is algorithmically finite supply and theoretically infinite demand. Or you can choose to not swallow your pride (you won’t) and listen to shitcoin scammers all day. I’ll be rich either way, it’s not my job to teach uneducated poorfags. But clearly y’all are some dumb motherfuckers lmao

[Anonymous No.18863589]

>>18863485

What you say about "digital gold" is precisely the con which the BTC moonboys are selling you. Don't believe it. Satoshi Nakamoto expressly called Bitcoin an electronic _cash_ system, with good reason. The only intrinsic advantage which crypto has over gold is as a _payment_ system--that it can be used to do things which gold doesn't. Take those things away, and it becomes a worthless ponzi scheme, and Bitcoin is as useless as a stone. Gold already fulfils the function of being a store of value in and of itself. If crypto does have a future, it's Bitcoin Cash or Monero. If it doesn't, you had better have a lot of your savings in gold and gold-mining stocks, because the economy doesn't have long to go.

[Anonymous No.18863740]

>>18863589
I’m not looking to convince anyone, I arrived at these conclusions myself not through someone else’s shilling. A ponzi scheme is more something like Bitconnect, where investors are promised higher future returns by bringing on new investors. Bitcoin is very much a pyramid not a ponzi. Gold falls into the pyramid category as well, it’s just been around longer, where whatever amounts retail purchases is virtually nothing compared to real gold holders (countries, etc). I think it provides a finite basis of hard money in an infinite fiat world. This world does not have infinite resources, and any illusion of fiat to make you think you can capture it all is foolish. Look up power law, the Bitcoin forks are equally split in value and will not overtake the King. First mover is all that matters in this world, otherwise someone would have overtaken Facebook, Amazon, or Google by now.

[Anonymous No.18863839]

>>18861045
This.

[Anonymous No.18863880]

>>18863485

>First mover is all that matters in this world, otherwise someone would have overtaken Facebook, Amazon, or Google by now.

Where is Digg? Where is MySpace? Where is AltaVista?

>Look up power law, the Bitcoin forks are equally split in value and will not overtake the King.

Don't count your chickens before they hatch.

Facebook, Amazon, and Google survive because they actually produce a useful service. The reason why BTC soared in the first place, is because of properties which people thought it had which were superior to either gold or fiat. One important reason why it subsequently crashed from $20,000 to $3,000, is because people realized it was a scam. They were paying $50 for transaction fees, and sometimes waiting days for payments to go through.

Something has to be useful before it can become a store of value. Bitcoin has no intrinsic use, hence it will never be a store of value. The only reason to hoard Bitcoins is if they work--if they really are a peer to peer, electronic cash service with low transaction fees and anonymity. That's what BCH is. BTC doesn't offer anything except speculation, hence it will never reach widespread adoption, hence it _will_ crash. Nothing can become a store of value which is _purely_ about gambling and speculation.

[Anonymous No.18863903]

"Impact on Bitcoin security. If any of the deviant mining strategies we explore were to be deployed, the impact
on Bitcoin’s security would be serious. At best, the block
chain will have a significant fraction of stale or orphaned
blocks due to constant forks, making 51% attacks much easier and increasing the transaction confirmation time. At
worst, consensus will break down due to block withholding
or increasingly aggressive undercutting.
This suggests a fundamental rethinking of the role of block
rewards in cryptocurrency design. Nakamoto appears to
have viewed the block reward as a necessary but temporary
evil to achieve an initial allocation of bitcoins in the absence
of a central authority, with the transaction fee regime being
the ideal, inflation-free steady state of the system. But our
work shows that incentivizing compliant miner behavior in
the transaction fee regime is a significantly more daunting
task than in the block reward regime."

[Anonymous No.18863998]

>>18863880
I think you are misattributing here because the real “first mover” was on the protocol level which enabled these services to exist. Bitcoin is like the https protocol layer of money, it is the most secure layer. Anything built on top of these, and built well will benefit from the base layer of security. Transaction coins are inherently worthless, they cannot hold their value. A Bitcoin is still a Bitcoin whether it is worth $1 or $20,000, nothing has fundamentally been altered other than network effects. And at this point it’s safe to say that everyone knows Bitcoin, and will buy that and not some unknown fork or an unproven scam on Ethereum. I don’t think BTC is pure speculation anymore, I think people legitimately view it as a safe haven. It has gone and crashed and recovered through the most brutal decline and black swan event of the S&P 500 in the last decade. It is truly impressive, and a once in a lifetime opportunity for those who see it.

[shop sergey's face on this(...) No.18864031]

>>18863880
>people realized it was a scam
more like whales decided its time to take profit

[Anonymous No.18864096]

>>18863998

If BTC was truly viewed as a safe haven, it wouldn't have crashed over 50% with the stock-market. That destroyed the safe haven narrative once and for all. Even silver only fell 33%, and gold fell a mere 10%. That is true confidence in an asset. People rushed back in to speculate on Bitcoin just as they did with respect to the stock market. When stocks go down, Bitcoin does down. When stocks go up, Bitcoin goes up. Why buy Bitcoin then?

BHC and other cryptos go up and down with BTC, but that doesn't bother me, because I hold them for the long-term, just like the early adopters of BTC, who were not shaken out of the market by volatility. But if I was holding what I _knew_ to be a fundamentally flawed technology, I'd be very nervous every time the price dropped, because I'd have no faith in it at all. All I'd be thinking about is how to get out as quickly as possible. There is no long-term future in something which is essentially worthless.

[Anonymous No.18864127]

>>18859438
Take your meds faggot

[Anonymous No.18864163]

>>18864127
kys faggot nerd

[Anonymous No.18864237]

>>18864096
>There is no long-term future in something which is essentially worthless.
How about this shitshow?

[Anonymous No.18864242]

>>18864096
I think it’s an uphill battle to try and convince people, best of luck. Kek is on my side though, since I’m the OP. My original ID was green, my ID now is Bitcoin’s orange. I’ll take any signs I can get from above in this beautifully chaotic world.

[Anonymous No.18864254]

>>18859438
we made it

[Anonymous No.18864295]

>>18859552
>B-but they might need to update protocols sometime in the next few decades!
>I-it's not like the software is designed to be forked at any point in the chain for needed protocol updates

[Anonymous No.18864406]

>>18863880
I would agree with your overall argument but it fails on the fact that there never was a widespread use of Bitcoin for transactions so it's inability to do transactions really well is a nothing point. Other cryptos have risen to fill those voids already and bitcoin is still #1. You want to buy drugs anonymously - Monero, you want to tip $0.1cent on Reddit - Dogecoin, and so. With bitcoin you are buying the idea, that it was the first crypto, and the scarcity, there will only ever be 21million. If you own a btc you have something only 21million others on the planet possibly can, out of 7.5billion people. Even if Bill Gates manages to kill everyone and reduce the population to 500mill you'll still have something that others can't possibly all have. Only alt coins need use, bitcoin has its name as #1 and its scarcity.

[Anonymous No.18864423]

>>18864031
Exactly this.
>>18864096
It is very difficult for bitcoin to become a counter-cyclical asset due to above reason. If pensions started going for bitcoin then whales would take their huge profits. If consumer confidence survived the selloff (hint: it never does) then it would be straight to $100k and beyond.

[Anonymous No.18864602]

>>18864295

That's what BHC already is. It does what BTC should be doing now. The BTC developers have adopted a cult-like belief that making a hard-fork is the ultimate sin. They are dead-set against either hard-forking, or having BTC be a cheap peer-to-peer cash system. Changing consensus on that point would be virtually impossible. Before the developers finally admit that they have to hard-fork to save BTC, BTC users will have migrated to what already works. If the issue became prominent, there would be a split in the community, and those who left BTC would simply go to BCH. Besides which, BTC is fundamentally written on, and designed around, a flawed code-system (SegWit).

[Anonymous No.18864927]

>>18859552
BIS article makes good points on why bitcoin's economic model is poised to fail in the long run, but it fails to address the true reasons behind these problems and fails to provide the correct solution. POW is not the problem and POS is not the solution. major issues to tackle here are the block rewards and the block size. you can adopt constant block rewards or have increasing block rewards by a fixed percentage every year, thereby abandon the deflationary model for a disinflationary or an inflationary model. another option is to increase the block size over time to accommodate the growing transaction volume on the network. if most of the activity is done on a second layer (ie LN), then the only option would be to have constant or increasing block rewards since there wouldn't be enough transactions on the blockchain to generate enough fees to compensate the miners. so having POS wouldn't actually solve any of the problems that bitcoin will eventually have to face.